On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 20:24 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > So why make them do anything at all? Let's just auto file the bug. > Let the ones who want to care shine out. Because I was only talking about the lowest common denominator; the people who are either unwilling or unable to maintain their package properly. In the cases where the packager _is_ actually doing their job properly, they _will_ be looking at the build failures; at least for long enough to decide whether it's an arch-specific issue (which mostly it won't be, in my experience). It isn't _really_ expected that anyone would ever ship a failed build without even looking at the failure; I was just pointing out that they _could_. If we really want that kind of person responsible for packages carrying the 'Fedora' brand, nothing in what I've suggested would actually _prevent_ them from doing just that. Their packages are probably a lost cause if there are ever any problems (of any kind), both in primary architectures and in secondary. But for packages which _are_ actually maintained properly¹ we don't want partially-failed buggy builds landing in the repository automatically, and making the secondary trees gratuitously inconsistent; we want that to happen only after a _conscious_ decision by the maintainer that that's what should happen. The idea is that it should be a relatively rare occurrence. If it's frequent, we might as well ditch the whole secondary architecture thing altogether; they're no better off than they were when they were entirely separate. We also want to encourage coherent bugzilla reports, by giving them a template to fill in instead of just automatically filing it. Again, those who really can't be bothered wouldn't _have_ to fill it in properly; they could just submit the template unaltered. But again, we wouldn't expect that to happen in the common case. -- dwmw2 ¹ which is most, if not all of them. While people have got all pointlessly Californian about the terminology used to describe these 'lowest common denominator' packagers, I don't think anyone _specific_ has ever been mentioned, apart from myself (mostly in the context that I really shouldn't be responsible for anything even remotely involved with dbus). But you seem worried about making life harder for these people if they exist, so I'm pointing out that it _wouldn't_ be harder for them. As long as they can refrain from breaking their mouse by drooling on it, they don't even need to _look_ at build failures before they ship their buggy package. For better or worse. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
