Our static Libraries packaging guidelines once more

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:16:13PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 12:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > Not for all packaging policies, but for some I think that would be a
> > good idea. Pick a set of policies we think are particularly important
> > to enforce & can be automatically checked, and declare any non-compliant
> > ones will be dropped in the next fedora release unless fixed. 
> 
> Well, I think a reasonable alternative would be to add those policies to
> the AutoQA infrastructure, and if the package fails the check, it
> doesn't get tagged and the packager gets an email explaining the
> failure. That will get things fixed up. ;)

That sounds good as long as AutoQA is reliable, not generating false
positives. I'd still also suggest that we have a rule drop all
packages reported by the FTBFS tests which aren't fixed by time of 
Beta.

Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|