Fedora.us QA (was: Re: Prelink success story :))

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 06:21:48 -0500, Erik LaBianca wrote:

> I like that distinction. However, I don't think unowned directories,
> incorrect file permissions or lack of macros in paths qualify as show
> stoppers. 

Depending on root's umask, unowned directories would be created
inaccessibly for ordinary users. Incorrect file permissions (e.g. 
missing %defattr) would give an arbitrary ordinary user write-access to
those files. And when such issues are found during QA, why not fix them?

> Why is fedora.us / extras held to a higher standard of quality
> than redhat themselves?

Because Red Hat have an established distribution already. Fedora.us is in
the process of building a reliable base which other packages can build
upon.

> There is plenty of time to improve packages with
> time, and getting stuck on perfection before passing QA is going to
> prevent anyone from posting or reviewing packages.

Again, *when* such issues are discovered during the review phase,
why not fix them sooner rather than later?

> Instead, QA is going to be attractive to some poor sysadmin who needs
> amavis (or one of the other 300+ packages sitting in the QA queue), and
> wants to know it will work well with fedora, and that it will upgrade
> cleanly in the future. The same guy who right now points his yum.conf at
> atrpms, dagrpms and freshrpms because THEY have packages that he can
> download NOW, and usually work.

But if he's entirely happy with those repositories, he doesn't have any
interest in getting the same software included in another repository.

He must recognize the additional benefits of an open community project
like fedora.us or Fedora Extras before he would choose to support it.

--