QA's Package update policy proposal

[James Laska]

On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 11:13 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 15:43:04 -0500,
>   James Laska <jlaska at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> >      1. repoclosure/conflicts - no package update can introduce broken
> >         deps or conflicts.  I'd recommend we apply this to both
> >         'updates-testing' and 'updates' (but that's detailed below)
> >      2. Package sanity
> >               * No rpmlint failures
> >               * Is the Source properly defined
> >               * License review/examination (if possible)
> >               * Upstream Source match tarball
> >               * Package scriptlet syntax checks
> >      3. Package must be newer than previously released versions - can't
> >         ship newer package in N-1.
> >      4. Any additional MUST requirements folks would like to see covered
> >         from the package review requirements?
> 
> File conflicts (assuming that "conflicts" above referred to just conflicts
> dependencies).

Ah yes.  I wasn't specific enough about, but file conflicts is what was
meant.

Thanks,
James
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100310/fa15da0e/attachment.bin