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

Re: Packaging review guidelines clarification



On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 04:16 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I'm reviewing a package that builds on FC4 but not on devel due to
> > recent GCC issues.  According to
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
> >
> >   "MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into
> >    binary rpms on at least one supported architecture."
> >
> > but, unfortunately, this says nothing about *which* version(s) of FC
> > should be used.  I think "one supported architecture on either
> > FC-current or FC-devel" would be appropriate but thats just my opinion.
> > And I could appreciate the reasoning behind "must build on FC-devel"
> > since its where all FE packages are initially imported.  So would
> > someone (Spot?) please clarify?
> >
> > Ed
> >
> 
> I've always used "a current supported version of Fedora Core" as a
> rule of thumb.  I also treat the should build on mock as a must build
> on mock unless the contributor can provide a good reason as to why it
> won't build on mock.

I think a failure to build in mock is a blocker, unless the reason is
either a deficiency in mock (in which case there should be a reference
to the bugzilla ticket for the issue raised on mock), or a dependency
not available in Core or Extras yet (which can easily be worked around
by adding a local repo containing the missing dependency to the
reviewer's mock configuration).

Remember that the build system uses mock, so if it won't build in mock,
it won't get built for Extras at all.

Paul.


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