Re: Testing Fedora - small (?) suggestion.

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

 



On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 09:02 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> (Jesse, I suspect the model you're thinking of it "oh crap, the tree has 
> broken deps, we can't publish _anything_".  Which is wrong.  You publish 
> the bits that are at least guaranteed by RPM requirements to install.  I 
> mean, you want that for the updates stream for formal releases anyway, 
> where 'yum update' should _never_ fail, and I suspect right now the 
> releng team is doing that verification by hand.  Trust the computer. 
> Let it do the boring work.)

+1

A while back I recommended Extras should use this exact process. The one
problem being that if we only did it in extras, updates of core could
still break deps in Extras. (Like when a Mozilla/Firefox update breaks
Galeon...) Now that we're merging the two, that's no longer a problem.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[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