On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 07:48 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:31:31 +0100, > Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >>> * allow packages with a %check section to go direct to stable. > > >> > > I think this is a bad idea. Just insert a null- %check section (package > > gets a +1 from provenpackager, add a (pseudo-anonymous) +1 vote and > > voila: package goes directly to stable. > > I think it is reasonable to assume our packagers aren't going to be > malicious. While someone could copy over an empty check section without > realizing what it does, this should be caught in the initial package review. We can test for the presence of a %check ... and whether it contains "something" with an rpmlint test. But I think the point here is that the presence of %check doesn't mean the package should get a free pass into stable. It can however, be another positive data point collected while running the package update acceptance test plan [1]. Anyone interested in drafting a quick rpmlint test for this? My initial inspection shows that creating a new python rpmlint test to check for a non-empty %check wouldn't be terribly difficult </famous_last_words>. To get started ... let's file a ticket [2] and start the discussion on autoqa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks, James [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Package_Update_Acceptance_Test_Plan [2] https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/newticket
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
