exclude people from giving karma?

[drago01]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>
>
> Am 23.02.2014 22:40, schrieb Theodore Lee:
>> On 24/02/14 06:29, Susi Lehtola wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:12:55 +0100
>>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3f3333b8666c1244e215a6aa2
>>>>
>>>> how can people pretend "installation went smoothly, no issue detected during basic
>>>> document manipulation" for packages which are not installable at all due
>>>> dependencie problems?
>>>
>>> People *couldn't* know there were problems, because all the positive
>>> reports were from the time the update was in updates-testing. All who
>>> tried the update, also had the dependency available in updates-testing.
>>
>> For what it's worth, my report (the first with the dependency issue) and
>> a subsequent one were also from updates-testing, and both did not have
>> the dependency available.
>
> they never did
>
>> I did do a manual check of Koji and Bodhi to try and figure out why my
>> results were different from the previous testers, and could only find
>> the necessary build in Koji, which quite frankly left me very confused
>> and unsure if I was experiencing some kind of mirror sync issue and/or
>> chronic lack of coffee syndrome. I now understand the initial positive
>> karma results had something to do with a buildroot override
>
> which never hit updates-testing
>
> 2014-02-21 13:59:06 This update has been submitted for testing by dtardo
> 2014-02-22 09:35:15 will be pushed to the stable updates repository
>
> this is *unacceptable* in case of broken deps and buildroot overrides
> while this is not a secuity update and people are pushing such things
> to stable refuse to understand the the dependecy error may result in
> *not get whatever SECURITY UPDATE* for ordinary users for no gain

That's not true. packagekit / gnome-software / dnf use an
"--skip-broken" equivalent by default iirc.

> and no "you have to apologize" from the maintainer does change that
>
> if the maintainers would run a baisc virtual machine consuming
> ordinary repos without manual overrides such mistakes would be
> recognized by them..............

Well the proper way to fix is to have automated and enforced dep
checks ... <insert reply from AdamW here telling me that it is not
ready for that yet ;) >