On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:42:10AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/30/2014 10:53 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:37:46AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>On 09/29/2014 08:54 PM, Haïkel wrote:
>>>Currently, there is *no* golang packaging guidelines approved, so we
>>>shouldn't have accepted golang packages in the first place.
>>I think this is problematic considering that some other languages violates
>>their language-specific packaging guidelines with complete impunity. And
>>some of those guidelines fall far short of what's being demanded from Go
>>Go is held to absurdly high standards, and there's no clear reason for that.
>Are you really making the argument: the other are bad so we can be too?
No, I'm just pointing out a significant inconsistency.
What I think is happening is this: There is no enforcement whatsoever after
the initial review (whether for guidelines or individual packages), so the
bar has to be absurdly high, in the hope that this will result in perfect
packages. Then, during the inevitable decline in packaging quality, it
takes some time until things become really bad because the initial standards
were so high.
After-review quality is clearly something we will have to address in a near
I know Stanislav had been running at some point fedora-review on most if not all
the packages in Fedora. Doing this periodically might help tracking the state of
the quality of our packages
Similarly, doing automatic rebuild of all packages that have not been rebuild
after, say, 6 month (ie: more regular FTBFS check) might help finding out
problematic packages earlier.
>What would be interesting though, are tickets pointing out what
is wrong in the
>current guidelines and bug report against the package not following the
I tried, didn't work. It's not surprising because filing bugs doesn't fix
That's for sure, it does help tracking things though.
Thanks for trying at least :)