Procedure to push a package causing broken deps to f15?

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at
Wed Feb 16 16:50:06 UTC 2011

On 02/16/2011 05:07 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ralf Corsepius"<rc040203 at>
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"<devel at>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:44:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: Procedure to push a package causing broken deps to f15?
>> On 02/16/2011 10:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>>>> I completely agree.
>>>> At least nag-mails about the broken dependencies (because of
>>>> rpm-4.9)
>>>> should be delivered sooner or we should wait with branching or do
>>>> mass-rebuild sooner. Now we have to build everything for F-{15,16}
>>>> and
>>>> even wait for testing,
>> The real problem behind all this is these packages having made it into
>> f15 - This should not have happened, QA should have caught them
>> earlier,
>> should have fixed them or at least have informed these packages'
>> owners.
> Autoqa should be able to track these dependencies, but it's not ready yet.
Uncooked future ... irrelevant at this point in time.

>> That said, I would propose to immediately push package updates for f15
>> to testing (spares ca. 24 hours of delay) and to reduce the
>> "testing->stable" push delay to 24 hours or less.

> I suppose this was already denied by FESCo,
Well, provided the long history of "arguable" decisions of FESCo, this 
would not surprize me.

May-be your FESCo collegues should be delegated to ironing out the 
current perl mess to learn why the current practice is not helpful?

  but I could be wrong.
> We were definitely speaking about shorter periods in testing, but the
> period looked to short and updates probably won't be tested at all.
ROTFL ... How many vote do your perl-package updates normally receive?

95%-99% of mine don't receive any. I.e. probably all testing they saw 
was preformed by me (the maintainer).


More information about the devel mailing list