On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:48:26AM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > so are all these bugs, for that matter: they're actual bugs encountered >> > by Matt. The package failing to build is clearly a bug. Matt tried to >> > build it and so encountered the bug. Where does it fail to meet your >> > criteria? >> > >> > I agree it's a bit questionable whether we should block packages for >> > FTBFS, but the argument can clearly be made; being self-hosting is >> > obviously important for an F/OSS project. At some point it devolves into >> > Stallmanite wankery about whether you can flash your mouse, but where >> > exactly we should draw the line isn't a slam-dunk :) >> >> I'm sitting on the fence on this one. There are packages built on F-12 >> that work perfectly well on rawhide that don't build on rawhide. What >> about an instance where there's dependant packages. Do they >> automatically get blocked too or do we go through another route of >> FTBFS on those too? >> > Yes, they should get automatically blocked too. > >> In the case of a leaf one it might be that by it >> not building currently doesn't affect anything and the maintainer is >> aware of the problem but needs the time to fix the issue properly when >> he gets time. In this case the maintainer then has to jump through the >> review process all over again to get it unblocked and then will likely >> just not be bothered. > > They shouldn't have to go through a re-review unless they've let the package > sit in retirement for (I believe it's six months but someone else might have > the policy URL handy). My understanding was that if it was blocked it had to go through review again. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
