On 04/09/2011 05:31 AM, 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). Actually, we are running automated dependency checks on builds. Comments should be re-enabled in bodhi soon (in the next couple of days unless something changes) but as Adam said, everything is just a warning for now - no automation is preventing the push of updates with broken dependencies. I may be biased, but I know that I'm looking forward to the new depcheck and upgradepath goodness :) Tim
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
