On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:28:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote: > Actually "machine generated" isn't per se bad ... it saves a lot of > effort and should be done more (for other packages too where > possible). > Why waste man power for something that can be automated? > > As for tex ... we could have a srpm for each one (machine generated > there is no reason it has to be one srpm) would also mean that only > the packages where something changes end up getting updated. Right, as I understand it, the gigantic single SRPM is to avoid the normal requirement that each individual package have its own manual review. For thousands of packages, that's quite a burden. But the workaround, while not violating any specific guidelines, doesn't _really_ have any more careful individual review of each of its parts — it's not a gain. And it has negative side-effects. If FPC would be open to bulk-approving machine-generated individual spec files (given, say, they're provably all following the template, which would be reviewed), and rel-eng has some way of bulk-adding the necessary branches and builds, that really seems like a step forward to me. Am I missing something? -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
