On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 08:58 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > That's solving a different problem the wrong way, which certainly > > > seems better suited to a bit in the review request, or packagedb, etc. > > > > The target is to automate review requests as much as possible not pile > > up new manual checks. I don't ask this just for fun. I ask this because > > I happen to do comps QA for my SIG every few months and manual checks > > are not fun at all. > > How is packagedb or bugzilla not automatable? We have programmatic interfaces > to both. > > All I'm saying is that changing the user-visible behavior in order > to implement a specific QA method for comps is putting the cart > before the horse. There is a visible flag for groups¹. So we could have a /dev/null group without it being directly user visible. However that'll add roughly 874K to comps. (65K compressed), then yum/etc. has to parse it all out whenever we need group info. and the "all packagenames need to be in at least one group" doesn't strike me as a very good rule, anyway. ¹ yum-groups-manager --id /dev/null --not-user-visible yum -- James Antill <james.antill@xxxxxxxxxx> Red Hat
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
