Proposed package blocking due to FTBFS

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:48:26AM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > so are all these bugs, for that matter: they're actual bugs encountered
> > by Matt. The package failing to build is clearly a bug. Matt tried to
> > build it and so encountered the bug. Where does it fail to meet your
> > criteria?
> >
> > I agree it's a bit questionable whether we should block packages for
> > FTBFS, but the argument can clearly be made; being self-hosting is
> > obviously important for an F/OSS project. At some point it devolves into
> > Stallmanite wankery about whether you can flash your mouse, but where
> > exactly we should draw the line isn't a slam-dunk :)
> 
> I'm sitting on the fence on this one. There are packages built on F-12
> that work perfectly well on rawhide that don't build on rawhide. What
> about an instance where there's dependant packages. Do they
> automatically get blocked too or do we go through another route of
> FTBFS on those too? 
>
Yes, they should get automatically blocked too.

> In the case of a leaf one it might be that by it
> not building currently doesn't affect anything and the maintainer is
> aware of the problem but needs the time to fix the issue properly when
> he gets time. In this case the maintainer then has to jump through the
> review process all over again to get it unblocked and then will likely
> just not be bothered.

They shouldn't have to go through a re-review unless they've let the package
sit in retirement for (I believe it's six months but someone else might have
the policy URL handy).

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20101208/1c0bbe32/attachment-0001.bin