On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 01:17 -0700, Alex Lancaster wrote: > I think that the above policy should be made mandatory rather than > "nice to" (unless you happen to be building all affected package > yourself in which case an e-mail is superfluous). At the very least > it would get maintainers in the habit of running repoquery more > regularly and so they would get a better sense of what other packages > depended on their package (many maintainers seem unaware of this). > Ideally this would be automated and provided in regular reports, or > somehow incorporated into PackageDB. Something that I'm planning for our infrastructure in the future is the ability to do a build in the buildsystem, have it go through some post-build examination such as: Did a soname change? Did provides change? Did requires change? Did files get removed? Did files get added? so on and so forth, all geared toward "would this cause problems if introduced into the package set?". The maintainer would get a report and if some things triggered poorly (like so name changes) the build wouldn't get tagged into the collection, and the maintainer would have to interact with something to either force the tag (which could then trigger the emails you're talking about, soname bumping etc...) or throw the build away and do something different. Of course this type of functionality is blocking on a few things, like an automated testing environment. But hey, we'll get there at some point! -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
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
