updates improvements/changes ideas
jlaska at redhat.com
Tue Nov 30 16:05:27 UTC 2010
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 07:48 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:31:31 +0100,
> Matthias Runge <mrunge at matthias-runge.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> * allow packages with a %check section to go direct to stable.
> > >>
> > I think this is a bad idea. Just insert a null- %check section (package
> > gets a +1 from provenpackager, add a (pseudo-anonymous) +1 vote and
> > voila: package goes directly to stable.
> I think it is reasonable to assume our packagers aren't going to be
> malicious. While someone could copy over an empty check section without
> realizing what it does, this should be caught in the initial package review.
We can test for the presence of a %check ... and whether it contains
"something" with an rpmlint test. But I think the point here is that
the presence of %check doesn't mean the package should get a free pass
into stable. It can however, be another positive data point collected
while running the package update acceptance test plan .
Anyone interested in drafting a quick rpmlint test for this? My initial
inspection shows that creating a new python rpmlint test to check for a
non-empty %check wouldn't be terribly difficult </famous_last_words>.
To get started ... let's file a ticket  and start the discussion on
autoqa-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20101130/9ab9dda6/attachment.bin
More information about the test