QA process was Re: RPM submission procedure

[Ronny Buchmann]

On Thursday 08 January 2004 18:32, Steven Pritchard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:47:02AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Packaging is not "art", it is an engineering task. We should focus on
> > packaging software correctly, not on beautifying a build script.
>
> I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels like this.  My earlier "pain
> in the ass" comment about getting packages in fedora.us mostly came as
> a result of someone commenting on one of my perl module packages,
> saying it didn't match the templates and should be redone.
>
> I only have two complaints about the fedora.us QA process right now.
> As near as I can tell, the only review that has happened of any of the
> packages I've submitted so far has been a couple of people picking
> apart my spec files for issues of style, not correctness.  Personally,
> I think style issues should be reserved for *after* any package has
> made it into testing, at least.
Absolutely, a working package is far more important than a beautyful spec 
file.

> My only other complaint, and it really is more of a suggestion, is
> that it would be *really* nice if the easy things (like "does this
> package build") were automated.  It would be *really* nice if the
> automatically-built packages were put into a repository (accompanied
> by USE AT YOUR OWN RISK warnings) that reviewers could download and
> test from.  At that point it becomes almost zero effort for interested
> people (like me) to install a package on a test box and let it run for
> a while.
IMHO this auto-built repository is the only testing repository needed.
People could test packages from there and than vote for inclusion in "stable" 
repo. This would simplify QA in a great way.
The difference between "testing" and "unstable" is far from obvious and two 
testing repositories are really not needed.

-- 
http://LinuxWiki.org/RonnyBuchmann