Packaging review guidelines clarification

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 14:08 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 06:20 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > I think a failure to build in mock is a blocker, unless the reason is
> > > either a deficiency in mock (in which case there should be a reference
> > > to the bugzilla ticket for the issue raised on mock), or a dependency
> > > not available in Core or Extras yet (which can easily be worked around
> > > by adding a local repo containing the missing dependency to the
> > > reviewer's mock configuration).
> > >
> > > Remember that the build system uses mock, so if it won't build in mock,
> > > it won't get built for Extras at all.
> > >
> > > Paul.
> > 
> > I'm all for it, should we move 'should build on mock' to 'must build
> > on mock' in the wiki?
> 
> The problem with that is that not every reviewer has the bandwidth to
> support a mock build environment (particularly for development),
<grin/> Set up a local one, that's what I'm doing ...

>  so it's
> probably left as a "should", but a failure being a blocker.
Must be "must", because the buildsys uses mock, so a Review without mock
build isn't worth the bandwidth and time it requires.

Ralf