[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora Core 2 wishlists

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:56:58 -0500, Gene C. wrote:

> available to others.  Currently, my pet peeves are:
>   - gftp handling of http does not work in gftp-2.0.14 BUT gftp-2.0.16 is 
> available from upstream and that fixes most things.

gftp 2.0.16 is available in fedora.us "patches" repository.
> While I realize that the folks at Red Hat are a limited resource and cannot 
> address everything, perhaps there needs to be some secondary repository with 
> user created fixes for Fedora Core packages.  I find the current situation 
> which updated packages for packages included in Fedora Core being added to 
> Fedora Extras to be unreasonable!  Case in point: gftp.

Hopefully in the near future, changed packaging policies for such updates
will make it possible to offer them as official Fedora Core Test Updates.

> Currently the QA queue at fedora.us is clogged. 

There seems to be a general misconception about that QA queue. It is not
processed in FIFO order. Popular software or important updates would be
prioritized. Active package request tickets draw the attention of people
who can help approving a package if help is needed. It's just that an
increasing number of package submissions seem to be of not much interest
to users other than the packager.

> IMHO, this cannot be resolved without a different approach.  From 
> my viewpoint, the fedora.us QA process exceeds that done by Red Hat for some 
> of their packages. 

Which is partly because an online repository has a different release
scheme. Red Hat's distribution has a development stream and test releases.

> Furthermore, doing a source-code audit of a package as an 
> alternative to QA testing is a very expensive process (lots of people hours).  

Well, right now two people can approve a package according to the QA
policy. Provided that two people show interest and commitment.

> To me, testing of a package by a user does not require any special skills by 
> the user 


> -- just a desire to use the package and the willingness to do testing.

... and probably be open for additional review criteria, such as build
requirements or package content sanity checks (e.g. everything installed
in the right place? good file permissions?)


Attachment: pgp00095.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]