Frustrated package submitters? (was: Re: Summary from last FESCo meeting)
Ed Hill
ed at eh3.com
Sat Feb 25 19:50:33 UTC 2006
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 19:10 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> The recent repo
> breakage caused by invalid "Provides" plus some bugs in new packages and
> updates are reason enough not to "lower the hurdle" by altering the review
> process for new packages.
As one of the guilty parties from the recent dap-server problem, I'd
like to submit my humble apologies along with two ideas for addition to
the wiki at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
and they are:
- '''MUST''': Source must not use (and preferably not even contain)
a local copy of something that is packaged elsewhere in Fedora
Core or Extras.
- '''MUST''': For each binary and noarch RPM generated, reviewers
must verify that the list of provides ("rpm -q --provides ...")
are acceptable for this package.
Or, are there better ways to avoid this situation in the future? If so,
would someone please describe?
Ed
--
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails: eh3 at mit.edu ed at eh3.com
URLs: http://web.mit.edu/eh3/ http://eh3.com/
phone: 617-253-0098
fax: 617-253-4464
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list