Submission process (was: Re: Self-Introduction: Michael Tiemann)

Michael Schwendt fedora at wir-sind-cool.org
Wed Jun 30 17:07:59 UTC 2004


On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:53:39 +0200, Rudi Chiarito wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:53:32PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > And no one discusses any details, so it is not known what you would like
> > the "streamlined submission process" to look like.
> 
> Eric Raymond discussed it eloquently a few months ago and I also stated
> it in my first email today: the absence of a more automated process. At
> least that's _my_ own take on it.

Known thing, and what you can do with rpm --querytags and friends was no
news. But what has happened to the xmlrpc based bugzilla access?

> I'll admit that some of the trouble is more imaginary than real: five
> minutes spent copying, pasting and double-checking can easily seem like
> an eternity, when it's actually a mere five minutes... but why waste
> them, if it can be avoided?

You cannot avoid human interaction as in setting bugzilla keywords and
replying to comments. You could only avoid that with ultimately trusted
package maintainers who get direct access to a build/publish system.

> > team would be overloaded with failed build attempts (there is no automated
> > build system yet) or many package bugs would enter the repository.
> 
> This brings back the need for, I think, tools like mach. Should mach be
> part of FC?

No. It's in fedora.us already in the "stable" repository (much to the
disliking of some people) and the fedora.us build system uses a modified
version, http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~ensc/fedora.us-build/html/
but that is not an automated build system.

> Should it be sanctioned as a required tool for packagers?

No, because it behaves differently than plain rpmbuild.





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list