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

Re: 182 pending F11 stable updates. WTF?



On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 03:30 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > We were kicking around, in QA, using the same definition currently used
> > for release-critical bugs: anything that can feasibly stop the system
> > booting, stop X working, stop networking working, or stop you being able
> > to update the system (i.e. yum+dependencies) would be 'core'.
> 
> Under that definition, everything is core.
> 
> Name: foo
> Provides: glibc = 999:9
> Obsoletes: glibc < 999:9
> (plus some assorted fake soname provides to make the depsolving happy)
> breaks your system pretty fast. ^^

I wouldn't consider that a reasonable interpretation. glibc itself
should be part of core, but we can't consider *every* package part of
core just because it could provide glibc.

(On a tangent - can anyone think of any reason why we shouldn't enforce
a rule that no package could provide the actual name of another package?
I can't envisage any scenario where (ab)using Provides in that manner
would be useful, but I may be missing something).
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net


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