Re: Packaging review guidelines clarification

[Paul Howarth <paul city-fan org>]

On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 06:20 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > I think a failure to build in mock is a blocker, unless the reason is
> > either a deficiency in mock (in which case there should be a reference
> > to the bugzilla ticket for the issue raised on mock), or a dependency
> > not available in Core or Extras yet (which can easily be worked around
> > by adding a local repo containing the missing dependency to the
> > reviewer's mock configuration).
> >
> > Remember that the build system uses mock, so if it won't build in mock,
> > it won't get built for Extras at all.
> >
> > Paul.
> 
> I'm all for it, should we move 'should build on mock' to 'must build
> on mock' in the wiki?

The problem with that is that not every reviewer has the bandwidth to
support a mock build environment (particularly for development), so it's
probably left as a "should", but a failure being a blocker.

Paul.