On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 14:08 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: > On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 06:20 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > I think a failure to build in mock is a blocker, unless the reason is > > > either a deficiency in mock (in which case there should be a reference > > > to the bugzilla ticket for the issue raised on mock), or a dependency > > > not available in Core or Extras yet (which can easily be worked around > > > by adding a local repo containing the missing dependency to the > > > reviewer's mock configuration). > > > > > > Remember that the build system uses mock, so if it won't build in mock, > > > it won't get built for Extras at all. > > > > > > Paul. > > > > I'm all for it, should we move 'should build on mock' to 'must build > > on mock' in the wiki? > > The problem with that is that not every reviewer has the bandwidth to > support a mock build environment (particularly for development), <grin/> Set up a local one, that's what I'm doing ... > so it's > probably left as a "should", but a failure being a blocker. Must be "must", because the buildsys uses mock, so a Review without mock build isn't worth the bandwidth and time it requires. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
