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

Re: Our static Libraries packaging guidelines once more

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 01:57:14PM +0000, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 12:16 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > Well, I think a reasonable alternative would be to add those policies to
> > the AutoQA infrastructure, and if the package fails the check, it
> > doesn't get tagged and the packager gets an email explaining the
> > failure. That will get things fixed up. ;)
> The only problem with that is that just about every packaging guideline
> has _some_ valid exceptions (that's why they're all guidelines...) and
> it's rather hard to build exceptions into an automatic testing system in
> a way which doesn't get horribly crufty in a hurry. But yes, broadly I'm
> in favour of this kind of thing. Mandriva does it to a limited extent (a
> few rpmlint checks are run on submitted packages and certain failures
> cause the package to be rejected) and it does stop people making really
> bad mistakes.

At time of the initial package review, the packager has to justify the
exception to the reviewer. Post-package review packager can do whatever
they want. The lack of ongoing analysis of packaging changes post-review
is a hole in our process.

If we decided to turn a certain subset of the guidelines into hard rules,
then we'd want a way to record per-package exceptions in AutoQA, along
with a short justification text. This tracking would ensure we know about
changes/issues that arise post-review, closing that hole in our process.

|: 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]