Dependencies on Bodhi Updates

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 05:39 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > So I really see two options for improving these situations:
> > 1) https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/663 I opened this ticket two
> > months ago (to silence). The idea would be to add the ability for
> > bodhi
> > updates to mark other updates as a dependency, so that in the example
> > above, Firefox could have been marked as ready for stable, but not
> > pushed until the nss update was also marked as ready for stable. This
> > to
> > me seems like the best long-term solution. I'd also like to mention
> > that
> > Ubuntu's Launchpad system has this capability.
> 
> Having this implemented manually would be great. In the future I'd
> like to replace it with automatic process managed by AutoQA. AutoQA
> would say Bodhi "this update can be only pushed together with this
> other update, because the first one depends on the second one". The
> maintainer wouldn't then be forced to create mega-updates for
> dependent packages.

I'm not sure we necessarily want AutoQA to be _driving_ processes like
this, do we? Properly, it should be _verifying_ that updates are
dependency-complete, not performing the task of making them
dependency-complete. Doesn't it work better to have the
dependencies-in-updates stuff handled at the level of the existing tools
by which developers work with updates - i.e. Bodhi? Has AutoQA really
been designed to the requirements of acting as a traffic cop for Bodhi?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net