On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 10:05 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > 1) It's more flexible when we want to add a check for some other > problem besides dlls Doesn't prevent this from still happening. > 2) There is a way for maintainers to override it sanely if need be; we > really want fewer hardcoded macros (c.f. the discussion about > overriding the debuginfo stuff) Wrong answer. We absolutely cannot allow any pre-built binary to go through and be packaged. Period. > 3) It moves us towards fixing our current model where there is a very > high bar to entry, but a very low bar to further changes. You could > imagine for example that our process would block a package from being > distributed that added an rpmlint regression unless it was > peer-reviewed. Again, that can still be done on the side just as easily, nothing preventing that. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (jkeating.livejournal.com) Fedora Project (fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
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
