Michael Schwendt wrote:
That puts FE into a situation where we don't offer a working set of packages as long as the remaining packages are still under review, but which increases the risk that it breaks something our users have either built themselves or downloaded from 3rd party repos. At fedora.us we've always tried to publish complete dependency chains.
Agreed, that seems common sense to me. Though of course we have to live with the limits of the review process. For example Michael, you're reviewing gideon which I submitted (as a side note, i just got renamed 'crow', i'll have updates soon), but has dependencies on 2 other packages from the same author which I had to submit for review and build separately (and update as well to match the version of gideon under review). Is there an alternative to a serial dependency chain like this ? Bulk, or group reviews ? If some 3rd party repo had gideon available, it would have been difficult to go through the review process for all 3 without causing a conflict at some point.
We should realise that FE is not "complete" (and won't ever be complete with regard to the somet things). We should not make it more difficult for 3rd party packagers, who have joined FE already, to transfer more of their stuff to FE gradually while continuing to maintain their own repos.
Right, assuming the transfer process has indeed started. In the repo we're talking about here, I'm openly questioning that fact.
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
