On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 21:55 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>>> "RS" == Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > RS> Packages really should be reviewed for functionality too. > > > > I think you'd better start doing some reviews, then. > > > > - J< > > That just seems like a knee jerk reaction. When reviewing packages if > the functionality offered by them isnt tested we would end up packages > that follow naming and packaging guidelines perfectly but just wont > work. I dont think just me participating in reviews is going to fix that. > > Adding a guideline for reviewers in general to also test functionality > where applicable and encouraging that would be better. I agree with tibbs. This is the same principle as needing people to install and test rawhide. If you check the review ticket, there were several people in addition to the packager and reviewer who tried the packages and found that they worked. I'm running the package right now and everything works. If you had reviewed the package then maybe you would have run across this problem and it would have been solved before being approved. BTW, checking that the package functions as advertised is one of the items on the review checklist. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
