Our static Libraries packaging guidelines once more

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On 01/05/2010 12:23 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 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.

Sure, but even if it did generate a false positive, the build would
still be there, just not tagged. Rel-eng could tag the package manually
while fixing the test to prevent the false positive.

~spot