Hi ,
Thank you for your comments . I am so sorry to have a complete different view and opinion.
Have a nice day. Thanks. Andrei.
________________________________
* From: Michael Schwendt <mschwendt tmp0701 nospam arcor de> * To: fedora-test-list redhat com * Subject: Re: updates repo admission checklist hole * Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 08:54:14 +0200 ________________________________
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Suhan wrote:
It lloks that the hole is still open as now swig package update brokes the update.
I think there is a hole in QA process that allows untested packages to get into the update repo.
It's a pitty you don't understand any of this, and that instead of asking further questions you post crap in bugzilla.
PS: I find here a policy described: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy but there is no detailed QA Check list , can someone help me with some pointers to follow for more details?
That document is several years old. Its title is "Old Package Submission and QA Policies used at fedora.us". Its header says "This is a copy of the old document from fedora.us."
It doesn't apply to fedoraproject.org.
As what it still does in the Wiki, I don't know. I don't know either who takes care of the Wiki, which has become worse since we originally started with using one.
How did you find that page in the Wiki? By searching or by following links in the Packaging Guidelines?
[...]
I was searching for some more info but it seems I outdated info that confused me.
Back to the swig update. There is no QA process, at least not for the majority of packages. Here's the update ticket for swig:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-8145
As you can see, it got pushed directly to "stable", which didn't give anybody a chance to test it before it landed in the repos. Only if it had been pushed to testing, there would have been a window during which the community could have tested it and could have used the "karma points" voting system in bodhi, the Fedora Updates System.
And even if it didn't have broken deps, it could still suffer from further breakage, which could only be found out with actual testing (done by humans as well as automated tests).
________________________________ From: Suhan Andrei sandi_ro@yahoo.com To: fedora-test-list@redhat.com Sent: Monday, August 3, 2009 1:19:20 AM Subject: Re: updates repo admission checklist hole
HI ,
It lloks that the hole is still open as now swig package update brokes the update.
$> yum update swig Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit Setting up Update Process Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package swig.x86_64 0:1.3.39-1.fc10 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: perl(example) for package: swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 --> Processing Dependency: perl(it) for package: swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 --> Processing Dependency: perl(the) for package: swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 --> Processing Dependency: perl(argv) for package: swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 --> Running transaction check ---> Package jython-demo.x86_64 0:2.2.1-0.1.Release_2_2_1.1.2.fc10 set to be updated ---> Package swig.x86_64 0:1.3.39-1.fc10 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: perl(it) for package: swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 --> Processing Dependency: perl(the) for package: swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 --> Processing Dependency: perl(argv) for package: swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 --> Finished Dependency Resolution swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 from updates has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: perl(argv) is needed by package swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 (updates) swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 from updates has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: perl(it) is needed by package swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 (updates) swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 from updates has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: perl(the) is needed by package swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 (updates) Error: Missing Dependency: perl(argv) is needed by package swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 (updates) Error: Missing Dependency: perl(it) is needed by package swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 (updates) Error: Missing Dependency: perl(the) is needed by package swig-1.3.39-1.fc10.x86_64 (updates) You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: package-cleanup --problems package-cleanup --dupes rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
See more here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508517
Andrei.
________________________________ From: Suhan Andrei sandi_ro@yahoo.com To: fedora-test-list@redhat.com Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:03:27 PM Subject: updates repo admission checklist hole
Hi ,
I think there is a hole in QA process that allows untested packages to get into the update repo. I may be wrong as well but at least please look into this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508517
as this is a case where a broken package pollute the updates repository.
I am referring about current state of synce-hal package as reported by yum :
$yum list synce-hal Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit Available Packages synce-hal.x86_64 0.13.1-3.fc10 updates
PS: I find here a policy described: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy but there is no detailed QA Check list , can someone help me with some pointers to follow for more details?
Thanks, Andrei.
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 05:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Suhan wrote:
Hi ,
Thank you for your comments . I am so sorry to have a complete different view and opinion.
This is not so much about views and opinions, since I only told you some facts about the update process. You cannot tell whether I agree or disagree with you. I haven't gone that far to argue with you about personal opinions. It is not my intention to defend a process either. You jump to false conclusion based on a misunderstanding of how things are done at the Fedora Project, and you twist words in hope that they strengthen your complaints. You should not talk about a "hole" as long as you don't know [or misunderstand] the process. It is not being attempted at trying to prevent such broken dependencies.
Btw, it is impolite to bloat up your mail with unneeded 20K of quotes at the bottom. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines