On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:48:26AM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > so are all these bugs, for that matter: they're actual bugs encountered
> > by Matt. The package failing to build is clearly a bug. Matt tried to
> > build it and so encountered the bug. Where does it fail to meet your
> > criteria?
> > I agree it's a bit questionable whether we should block packages for
> > FTBFS, but the argument can clearly be made; being self-hosting is
> > obviously important for an F/OSS project. At some point it devolves into
> > Stallmanite wankery about whether you can flash your mouse, but where
> > exactly we should draw the line isn't a slam-dunk :)
> I'm sitting on the fence on this one. There are packages built on F-12
> that work perfectly well on rawhide that don't build on rawhide. What
> about an instance where there's dependant packages. Do they
> automatically get blocked too or do we go through another route of
> FTBFS on those too?
Yes, they should get automatically blocked too.
> In the case of a leaf one it might be that by it
> not building currently doesn't affect anything and the maintainer is
> aware of the problem but needs the time to fix the issue properly when
> he gets time. In this case the maintainer then has to jump through the
> review process all over again to get it unblocked and then will likely
> just not be bothered.
They shouldn't have to go through a re-review unless they've let the package
sit in retirement for (I believe it's six months but someone else might have
the policy URL handy).
My understanding was that if it was blocked it had to go through review again.