Don't put new packages through updates-testing

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at
Sat Jun 2 09:01:43 UTC 2007

On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 10:22 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Patrice Dumas wrote:s
> > On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 01:30:16PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 20:32 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>>> Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>>>> Not true many reviewers review on the latest stable, it says nowhere 
> >>>>> that a review should be done on rawhide.
> >>>> Review is about guidelines and nowhere in the guideline does it even say 
> >>>> that the fucntionality of the package should be tested. When I suggested 
> >>>> that it be added I got back a knee jerk reaction to participate in 
> >>>> reviews myself.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
> >>> described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
> >>> example.
> >> I suggested that it the "SHOULD" be changed to "MUST". A package that 
> >> doesnt even start shouldnt be getting past reviews.
> > 
> > For simple applications, sure, but for libs, modules and servers? And for
> > example when the package consist in multiple commands should them all be
> > tested?
> > 
> Exactly, there are very good reasons why this is a SHOULD and not a MUST. I'm 
> sure almost every reviewer will give a program a test run in the simple program 
> case / scenarion.
Why should they and what would this give? "Hello world" links as proof a
compiler is functional?

Assuring function is an upstream task, but judging whether a package is
suitable for public use is the rpm maintainer's job. 

That's one prime reason why I repeatedly refused to approve certain

>  Why must everything by regulated with rules, procedures and 
> more rules? Why can't we just TRUST each other, I'm getting very tired, sick 
> even, of this!
You're not alone - I feel this merger is not a merger but a "hostile
take-over by some dark powers".


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list