[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:

  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

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?

Ed

-- 
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]