[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Packaging guidelines: IPv6

Jima wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
It's even worse: All FE currently has is an "initial this looks sane
enough" review. Once a package is in FE, there actually is no QA nor
audit on packages at all. Nobody but the package owner is allowed to
change packages. If he doesn't want to listen, nothing will happen,
maintainers have all kind of freedom to commit all kind of stupidities
they want.

Huh? If a packager is committing "all kinds of stupidities" (catchy phrase, I like it) to their packages, someone's bound to notice in the emails to fedora-extras-commits (unless the packager is *really* good at hitting ^C at the right times!).

Ralf is one of the very few people that actually seem to read fedora-extras-commits. I read the commits of the people that I sponsor but that's about it. If more people read the commits list (which would take quite a lot of time every day) it might work as a QA mechanism but at the moment it's not a big help.

> If not, someone might notice bizarre
behavior in the package and eyeball the CVS. Once one of the stupidities is discovered, they're free to submit a bug report on the package.

That could be a bit on the late side depending on the severity of the stupidity.

The trick really is to get the right balance of QA and flexibility to get things done. I don't know what the solution for that is though.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]