QA process was Re: RPM submission procedure

[Karl DeBisschop]

On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 13:59, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:05:06 +0200 (EET), Panu Matilainen wrote:
> 
> > The amount of nitpicking trusted developers produce 
> > (among themselves) is enough to scare off anybody starting in packaging 
> > I'm willing to bet :)
> 
> This must change, although often it is separated between suggestions and
> blocker criteria. But at the same time, new packagers should not come
> with slightly modified packages from e.g. Mandrake Cooker which bzip2 even
> the smallest patch, or generic packages which contain dozens of lines of
> conditional code which tries to adapt to a build environment.

Is this rejection of generic packages official policy?

Somehow it seems to me contrary to the idea that Fedora stresses
upstream bugfixes.

I think of it this way: as a developer, I cannot possibly package well
for all distros, but I may be able to package well for the one or ones I
use heavily. Nonetheless, as a developer, I have to maintain the code in
single units that is readily packaged by many distros, not just the one
I happen to use.

Do other people see this tension?

I'm not saying that any distros packaging should be compromised by the
packaging of another. But it seems that the idea of pushing work
upstream would favor work with developer/packagers to make releases that
are suitable for direct use as much as possible.

-- 
Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop at alert.infoplease.com>
Pearson Education/Information Please