Packaging guidelines: IPv6

Paul Howarth paul at
Wed Jul 5 14:43:07 UTC 2006

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 

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.


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list