Recapitulate the current state of Fedora Extras and some ideas to make it better

[Bill Nottingham]

Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian.Iseli at licr.org) said: 
> 
> rdieter at math.unl.edu said:
> > If by "fail the build" you really mean "warn the packager", then we're  in
> > agreement.  (: 
> 
> I'd like something a bit more intrusive than a warning.  What I'd like to see 
> is:
>  1. package maintainer does its business and submits a build request
>  2. plague does the build, runs rpmlint, checks the provides,
>     checks the warnings
>  3. if there are no diffs, succeed
>  4. if there are diffs, fail and report the diffs
>  5. at this point, maintainer has to scan the diffs and make a decision:
>    A. the diffs are inocuous -> update the reference files and resubmit the 
>       build
>    B. the diffs expose a problem -> back to step 1.
> 
> Community will see the updates to the reference files and can comment where 
> needed...
> 
> I think this would be a pretty nice and easy QA improvement.

How about:

4. if there are diffs, move the package to holding
5. A) if the diffs are innocuous -> 'waive' the diffs, build is moved. Optionally,
   reference files are updated
   B) they expose a problem -> build is thrown away

?

Bill