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

Re: Frustrated package submitters? (was: Re: Summary from last FESCo meeting)

On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 19:10 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>   The recent repo
> breakage caused by invalid "Provides" plus some bugs in new packages and
> updates are reason enough not to "lower the hurdle" by altering the review
> process for new packages.

As one of the guilty parties from the recent dap-server problem, I'd
like to submit my humble apologies along with two ideas for addition to
the wiki at:


and they are:

 - '''MUST''': Source must not use (and preferably not even contain) 
   a local copy of something that is packaged elsewhere in Fedora 
   Core or Extras.

 - '''MUST''': For each binary and noarch RPM generated, reviewers 
   must verify that the list of provides ("rpm -q --provides ...") 
   are acceptable for this package.

Or, are there better ways to avoid this situation in the future?  If so,
would someone please describe?


Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office:  MIT Dept. of EAPS;  Rm 54-1424;  77 Massachusetts Ave.
             Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails:  eh3 mit edu                ed eh3 com
URLs:    http://web.mit.edu/eh3/    http://eh3.com/
phone:   617-253-0098
fax:     617-253-4464

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