Proposed package blocking due to FTBFS

[Peter Robinson]

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

My understanding was that if it was blocked it had to go through review again.

Peter