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

Re: Our static Libraries packaging guidelines once more



On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:48:47AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 11:30 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 11:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> On the other hand, with the
> >> guideline being so widely ignored, I'm not in a hurry to do work to
> >> comply with it ... 
> > 
> > Isn't that a chicken/egg problem?
> 
> It really is. I mean, we could create the "Packaging Police" to run
> around and enforce the guidelines by force (either by fixing them
> manually, or by threatening maintainers until they do it), but is that
> really what we want?

Not for all packaging policies, but for some I think that would be a
good idea. Pick a set of policies we think are particularly important
to enforce & can be automatically checked, and declare any non-compliant
ones will be dropped in the next fedora release unless fixed. 

Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|


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