On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:02:17 -0400 Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/28/2013 03:17 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > 5) update to new upstream versions in Rawhide - a tool could do bump > > the spec, do scratch builds automatically of newer versions, if > > that works ask the maintainer to apply a diff after reviewing the > > changes. I suppose. It doesn't seem like it's that hard for a > > maintainer to notice this and do that if thats all thats involved. > It quickly adds up if you are (co-) maintaining dozens of packages > which is not atypical in Fedora and it is fairly boring work that > could be mostly automated freeing up time to fix bugs or whatever > else that is more involved. I suppose. > > What items do you see needing in the web ui? > > I found a number of features in the old Fedora community UI really > useful and the only reason I didn't continue using it because of the > very slow UI. List of open bugs in all of the packages I maintain, > the ability to see which package version is in which release across > packages etc (ie) all the package maintainer specific views as > opposed to package specific views that is in > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/. All of these could be done > without the web UI but it is far more convenient to have a single > location to get all the info necessary to maintain packages. I don't think koji really is the right place for a lot of that. Sounds like a offshoot of the packages app for maintainers perhaps. > >> 11) automatic period rebuilds in rawhide to highlight FTBFS issues > >> aren't done as often anymore > > Can you expand on this? Not sure what you mean? > > What Matt Domsch was doing for > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fails_to_build_from_source Ah, sure, yeah. FTBFS runs would be a great little project. > > You mean, just that the file exists in repodata? Or? > > Make sure we are not abusing file dependencies when we could be > depending on the packages directly. Essentially a way to ensure we > are following > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#File_Dependencies ok, packages that have dir/file requires outside the small set. It seems like this could also be a QA check (There would need to be a whitelist as well). > Oh and one more thing, some process to keep track of un-upstreamed > patches and making sure we do that on a regular basis will be > useful. I have seen several packages in Fedora git which have > unapplied patches still in the repo and that could be automatically > checked and removed as well. Perhaps a RFE on fedpkg... it could run 'fedpkg unused-patches' before commit and note that they are there before doing the commit? Then maintainers would see them and remember to remove them. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
