RPM submission procedure

[Steven Pritchard]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:47:02AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Packaging is not "art", it is an engineering task. We should focus on
> packaging software correctly, not on beautifying a build script.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels like this.  My earlier "pain
in the ass" comment about getting packages in fedora.us mostly came as
a result of someone commenting on one of my perl module packages,
saying it didn't match the templates and should be redone.

I only have two complaints about the fedora.us QA process right now.
As near as I can tell, the only review that has happened of any of the
packages I've submitted so far has been a couple of people picking
apart my spec files for issues of style, not correctness.  Personally,
I think style issues should be reserved for *after* any package has
made it into testing, at least.

My only other complaint, and it really is more of a suggestion, is
that it would be *really* nice if the easy things (like "does this
package build") were automated.  It would be *really* nice if the
automatically-built packages were put into a repository (accompanied
by USE AT YOUR OWN RISK warnings) that reviewers could download and
test from.  At that point it becomes almost zero effort for interested
people (like me) to install a package on a test box and let it run for
a while.

Steve
-- 
Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc.
Email: steve at kspei.com             http://www.kspei.com/
Phone: (618)398-7360               Mobile: (618)567-7320