Christian.Iseli@xxxxxxxx (Christian.Iseli@xxxxxxxx) said: > > rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx said: > > If by "fail the build" you really mean "warn the packager", then we're in > > agreement. (: > > I'd like something a bit more intrusive than a warning. What I'd like to see > is: > 1. package maintainer does its business and submits a build request > 2. plague does the build, runs rpmlint, checks the provides, > checks the warnings > 3. if there are no diffs, succeed > 4. if there are diffs, fail and report the diffs > 5. at this point, maintainer has to scan the diffs and make a decision: > A. the diffs are inocuous -> update the reference files and resubmit the > build > B. the diffs expose a problem -> back to step 1. > > Community will see the updates to the reference files and can comment where > needed... > > I think this would be a pretty nice and easy QA improvement. How about: 4. if there are diffs, move the package to holding 5. A) if the diffs are innocuous -> 'waive' the diffs, build is moved. Optionally, reference files are updated B) they expose a problem -> build is thrown away ? Bill -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
