Our static Libraries packaging guidelines once more

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 10:38:50AM -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> What about packages that fail to build because they depend on some
> other package that is broken?  I've got one in that state now.  It
> fails to build from source because one of its BuildRequires is broken.
>  There's nothing wrong with my package.  Once the other guy fixes his,
> mine will magically start building again.  If the other guy hasn't
> fixed his package by Beta, how is dropping mine going to help?

It will motivate you, or someone else depending on it, to become a 
co-maintainer of the broken package & help with fixing it ;-P In 
all seriousness though, it is very bad if we're having many of cases
of large sets of downstream package chains being blocked by an dependant
one failing. If a security issue arises in the FTBFS package we're
between a rock & a hard place, which is why I think it is worth being
strict on fixing FTBFS bugs. 

Regards,
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 :|