Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:27:08PM +0200, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> On 10/25/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> >> 2) Try to have asterisk and its dependencies not released for FC5
> >
> >Matthias, if it were not *already* released into FC5 and FC6 the bug
> >would not had shown up!
> 
> Are you talking about astrerisk itself or some dependency?

I'm talking about dependencies. While building the new security hotfix
for the released and stable asterisk package it picked up for example
beta versions of zaptel and libpri (maybe something else, too, these
two already silently defunc'd the package build), because I had turned
on FE FC4 upwards for ATrpms' buildsystem since about half a year in
the belief that this should help close the gap, but it became a
back-fire.

> AFAICS, asterisk is still under review, so your comments are very well in 
> time:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922

No, it's the dependencies that are already in FC5 in beta.

Just to make my point clear: I'm ranting for FE breaking ATrpms, of
course, but even for active ATrpms-agnostics there should be one very
important issue: Why package beta software, when you don't have to,
and why shove it right into productive repos? This just lowers the
quality of the repo as a total. I for one am extremely conservative
with my own packaging in FE, and I think most people here do so the
same to keep the QA standards high.

Perhaps FE needs a testing section (many other repos have such
stability sections, e.g. "updates" has, kde-redhat has, ATrpms has,
freshrpms has and fedora.us also had).

Even devel is wrong as it automatically gets blessed to golden status
by every FC release. so it's either treating devel as carefully as a
release, or creating a space were experimentation is allowed and were
packages in there don't get automatically promoted to "stable" ones.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061025/192ebf93/attachment.sig>