On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 13:31 +0200, drago01 wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Tomasz Torcz <tomek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 05:32:04AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> Will Woods wrote: > >> > In fact, there's plenty of approvers available, but you're not engaging > >> > with them. They might not know how to test libtiff, or what needs > >> > testing, so other stuff gets tested first. > >> > >> The fact is, this is a SECURITY UPDATE and as such it should go out even > >> without testing. It's not acceptable to sit on security updates for weeks. > > > > No, security updates are not _that_ special. For example, there's > > an avahi update in pipeline. It has broken dependencies. Pushing this > > would broke some systems. I'm talking about: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/avahi-0.6.27-6.fc14 > > Packages with broken dependencies should just be unpushable (autoqa > was supposed to fix this but not sure what happend to it ...) > > We really should do an automated dep check before pushing updates (and > reject those with broken deps). autoqa is doing this since recently, but only as an advisory check until we make sure it's running smoothly. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
