Re: Autorollback patch question...

[James Olin Oden <joden malachi lee k12 nc us>]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Jeff Johnson wrote:

<snip>
> > 
> > That's an interesting POV.  In that case I'd say rpm has outgrown its
> > original design - there are many rpms out in the wild with little or
> > no QA.  I can see how Red Hat could take the "not our problem" stance
> > on that though.
> > 
> 
> Yah, mon, these bits were never intended for the rock'n-roll that
> is currently going on.
> 
> Still, the rpm bits *were* designed to make install into a chroot
> trivial for QA purposes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with
> that design decision, i.e. test before you release.
>
I don't believe being able to recover from some failures precludes (nor 
should it) testing before you release (-;  
 
> > > It's really not that hard to check package quality by installing
> > > in a chroot. It's simply not possible to recover from all possible
> > > errors, nor even a significant subset of all possible errors.
> > 
> > Agreed - it's not possible to achieve a 100% recovery; however there
> > is the potential for a best effort recovery, and that grey area is
> > more or less what we're discussing here.
> > 
> 
> And so we move to definition of "best effort", your (and James Olin Odin's)
> definition are different than others. My own answer is
>     Patches cheerfully accepted.
> as always.
> 
> Yes it sometimnes takes a while to get the patch integrated, sorry James ;-)
> 
Not a problem.  We all want our own patches integrated yesterday, but I'm 
not paying your bills (-;  Really, I appreciate all help and input I have 
got thus far.

Thanks...james