Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

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

 



On Thu, 2019-08-15 at 09:33 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 15. 08. 19 7:39, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Of course you might consider this special case, but apparently all the
> > other people who speak up had different special cases.
> 
> "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules"
> 
> I still think that if somebody would need to keep package unretired for 1.5+ 
> years, they have options:
> 
>   - let it be retired, unretire, retag (as in: "I don't give a damn")
>   - request an exception with proper reasons (as in: "I have proper reasons")
> 
> Just being able to let the package rot for 3+ releases is not good enough reason 
> IMHO.

Or just fix it so it damn well builds. Even if *you* don't need to use
it. I mean, is it so hard? I get *itchy* if I have an FTBFS bug on one
of my packages for three days. I can't imagine letting one sit there
for six months!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [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