Re: Dependencies on Bodhi Updates

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> > Having this implemented manually would be great. In the future I'd
> > like to replace it with automatic process managed by AutoQA. AutoQA
> > would say Bodhi "this update can be only pushed together with this
> > other update, because the first one depends on the second one". The
> > maintainer wouldn't then be forced to create mega-updates for
> > dependent packages.
> 
> I'm not sure we necessarily want AutoQA to be _driving_ processes
> like
> this, do we? Properly, it should be _verifying_ that updates are
> dependency-complete, not performing the task of making them
> dependency-complete. Doesn't it work better to have the
> dependencies-in-updates stuff handled at the level of the existing
> tools
> by which developers work with updates - i.e. Bodhi? Has AutoQA really
> been designed to the requirements of acting as a traffic cop for
> Bodhi?

I'm not sure I follow you on this. I was talking about verification. Let's have updates A and B in Bodhi, A depends on B. AutoQA will say "pushing A+B is fine", "pushing A alone is not fine", "pushing B alone is fine". That means the developer will not be required to manually specify "my update A depends on update B", because we wouldn't push A alone anyway.

But I don't think this is happening too soon so this discussion is really academical.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux