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

Re: Testing Fedora - small (?) suggestion.



On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 09:02 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> (Jesse, I suspect the model you're thinking of it "oh crap, the tree has 
> broken deps, we can't publish _anything_".  Which is wrong.  You publish 
> the bits that are at least guaranteed by RPM requirements to install.  I 
> mean, you want that for the updates stream for formal releases anyway, 
> where 'yum update' should _never_ fail, and I suspect right now the 
> releng team is doing that verification by hand.  Trust the computer. 
> Let it do the boring work.)

+1

A while back I recommended Extras should use this exact process. The one
problem being that if we only did it in extras, updates of core could
still break deps in Extras. (Like when a Mozilla/Firefox update breaks
Galeon...) Now that we're merging the two, that's no longer a problem.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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