Testing Fedora - small (?) suggestion.

[Callum Lerwick]

On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 10:06 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sunday 12 November 2006 07:18, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > This is the typical  discuss-things-endlessly-before-even-trying  type of
> > conversation. Meanwhile, the "Package EVR problems in FC+FE" report [1]
> > gets longer (even ".FC6" dist tags pop up in there - what the heck?!), and
> > Extras packagers don't rebuild their devel packages either. Even if they
> > managed to do so with a time-consuming mock build, they could not update
> > their rawhide machines (or upgrade FC6 to rawhide) without trying to hack a
> > long list of excludes.
> 
> And extras people can't rebuild against packages that don't get published.

Built packages would still be immediately available in the build system.
They just wouldn't be pushed to the public repos until the deps are
clean. In Extras terms, they'd be held in the needsign state.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20061128/1dba121b/attachment.sig>