FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Sat Feb 27 16:21:37 UTC 2010

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 02:55:41PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> New packages which don't Obsolete existing packages or Provide existing 
> provided names cannot cause any of the above. (They may technically trigger 

Special care should be given to the auto-generated Provides. I remember 
a package of mine that messed up the buildroot because of a perl 
auto-generated provides that happened because my package had a private
copy of a perl module...

Anyway, I don't think that new packages are very relevant to the issue, 
* they can sit in testing for some time, they are new package, it is 
  not as if they fix something
* the review is already a thorough review of the 'update', so when 
  errors happen, they are, in my opinion, more a failure of the review
  than of the update system.

Of course, dependencies of updated packages that must enter rapidly
because the update of the dependent package is important should 
certainly require more scrutiny. I remember vaguely that a new package
that entered as a dependency of an updated package caused issues in 
the past.


More information about the devel mailing list