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

Re: Plan for tomorrows (20070517) FESCO meeting



Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> But we're not even aware that there is a dispute, when people just
> decide not to follow the guidelines. There is no "Packaging QA"
> group, constantly auditing spec files.

Wouldn't that be something that a reviewer could bring up?  Say I
review a package with static libs and the submitter says "I don't care
about the guidelines, I'm packaging them anyway for $reason." ($reason
may be >= 0).

If I can't persuade the submitter to change their view or at least
document the reasoning, I can simply not approve the package.  Then it
doesn't get in at all (unless some other reviewer chooses to ignore
the guidelines as well).

I can also bring it up here and then it'll be in the eyes of other
maintainers.  It may end up being one of those corner cases that lead
to clearer guidelines.  Or maybe it will just lead to others noting
that the submitter should use better reasoning. (Or maybe it will just
lead to a never-ending debate. ;)

If no one even notices that the guidelines aren't being followed by a
package, then the problem might not be such a problem at all.  There
are a lot of other things that rank higher on the priority list, I'm
sure.

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many questions are unanswerable.
Many answers are questionable.

Attachment: pgpDbFlsyv99X.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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