On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 19:10 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > The recent repo > breakage caused by invalid "Provides" plus some bugs in new packages and > updates are reason enough not to "lower the hurdle" by altering the review > process for new packages. As one of the guilty parties from the recent dap-server problem, I'd like to submit my humble apologies along with two ideas for addition to the wiki at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines and they are: - '''MUST''': Source must not use (and preferably not even contain) a local copy of something that is packaged elsewhere in Fedora Core or Extras. - '''MUST''': For each binary and noarch RPM generated, reviewers must verify that the list of provides ("rpm -q --provides ...") are acceptable for this package. Or, are there better ways to avoid this situation in the future? If so, would someone please describe? Ed -- Edward H. Hill III, PhD office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 emails: eh3@xxxxxxx ed@xxxxxxx URLs: http://web.mit.edu/eh3/ http://eh3.com/ phone: 617-253-0098 fax: 617-253-4464 -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
