On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 16:08 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > 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 ... It's what I do too, but it still needs lots of bandwidth to keep the rawhide and FE development mirrors up to date. > > 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. It's much more useful to test builds in mock, I agree, but much of what's needed in a review doesn't need mock and I think just about everything *could* be done a different way (e.g. by using things like fedora-rmdevelrpms to check buildreqs). Paul. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
