Am Dienstag, 4. Oktober 2011, 14:27:01 schrieb Martin Schlander:
KUA has at least the same level of QA as any other unsupported OBS repo, i.e. none - except the maintainer himself (that would basically be me, though I call in the cavalry when I become aware of significant problems I cannot fix) using most of the packages on one specific distro version and arch.
As stated in one of my first emails KUA/Backports was once maintained by opensuse staff and at that time this was one of the main reasons to put it on the community repos list. So there was a decrease in QA which should be reflected in its recommendation status. It seems that while there was a distinction between Community and Backports repo back then, now there is not anymore.
All QA besides that depends on users reporting problems. This is the same as for any other OBS repo, whether in the community repos list or not.
Since KUA is limited to links to KDF the packages will actually have been tested somewhat before entering KUA, although in a different environment.
Whatever the test was, it failed in this case.
You still have not explained how the maintainer is supposed to fix something noone reported is broken.
Usually the maintainer should check the build status – which is obviously impossible if "does not build does not mean anything" applies. And I still don't get why there is only the choice of having links rather than the last version that works with distro x.y. If there ever was a working digikam version the maintainer should check whether a new version builds. If not the source for that distro should be reverted to the building version. Or even let Cor take over if he can build digikam even for 11.3.
Or how he's supposed to know it's broken without testing every package on every distro and arch. Which doesn't not happen for any package in any unsupported OBS repo - whether in community repos list or not. On 11.4 the digikam 1.9 package works fine afaict.
That's why "it does not build does not mean anything" is dangerous, because it hides the first "warning", i.e. the build status. Building does not mean it works but not building is even less informative. Further if there are any changes that demand a rebuild of the package that won't happen. People are stuck with some binary. To me that sounds like Playground.
Btw. the offending digikam 1.9 package has now been wiped for 11.3. So no more 11.3 users will have any problems because of it. Thanks for reporting the problem.
Wiping is not really what I would call maintaining a package or fixing a problem. I can understand that you do not have enough time to do it in another way but removing is giving up maintainership and not maintaining. So that's why I agree with Cristian that KUA is basically unmaintained. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org