Proposed udpates policy change
al.dunsmuir at sympatico.ca
Tue Mar 9 20:28:17 UTC 2010
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 3:20:25 PM, Adam Willamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:13 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> > 1) All updates (even security) must pass AutoQA tests.
>> > Rationale: If a package breaks dependencies, does not install, or
>> > fails other obvious tests, it should not be pushed. Period. Obviously,
>> > this proposal would not be enacted until AutoQA is live.
>> This is a sane approach.
>> One problem with immediate implementation would be that all packages,
>> no matter how insignificant would need to have tests that could be
>> run. Some packages in categories such as firmware or cross-compilation
>> tools would require specialized hardware to test fully as part of the
>> build or subsequent AutoQA testing.
> What Bill's talking about when he refers to 'autoqa tests' are generic
> tests which are concerned with package quality, not really the software
> in the package: stuff like do the dependencies work, are there any clear
> errors in the file lists. They can be run on any RPM package, the
> software in the package doesn't really matter.
> Adam Williamson
That makes sense.
How about things like rpmlint? Perhaps that would have caught the
bind/dnssec problems where user configs were directly rewritten
without backup to rpmnew files.
More information about the devel