Hello Ludwig, Am 12.11.2015 um 16:35 schrieb Ludwig Nussel:
Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Am 10.11.2015 um 18:39 schrieb Richard Brown:
Devel proejcts & all non-home repos do not have to follow our packaging policies
Thats the reason for not submitting everything to Factory / Leap
and quality standards. Our distributions do
I do not buy that "quality standards" argument. I hold my packages in e.g. "vdr" and "vdr:plugins" projects to high standard.
That is very good of course. The problem is that it's not verifiable. A package in Factory however gives the promise to adhere to the packaging policies and that the combination with other packages in the distribution doesn't cause havoc. That promise is made by the process a package has to follow in order to get checked in. Ie a number of automated and manual checks and the application of at least four eyes principle.
Yes, and as I already stated, some of these policies are the reason to not submit things to Factory. I don't think anyone will be able to explain to me how a patch tag in the spec file increases the package quality when I already have a full fledged patch header in the patch itself (and I'm the only contributor anyway). Before fighting such windmills (having perfectly good packages rejected just because of missing patch tags, but all the others that depend on the rejected one checked in and thus being broken was a frequenc encounter), I prefer to simply keep stuff out of Factory.
The process does not guarantee that an individual package is bug free of course. If you already adhere to the standards it should be only a small step to Factory inclusion.
(I'm not questioning that there are projects like GNOME:Factory or whatever, where people like patch tags and find them useful, but for me they are just annoying).
Correct me if I'm wrong but to the best of my knowledge the patch tagging is still up to the individual package or devel project. It's recommended but not mandatory.
I cannot say when it happened last, but it definitely happened when submitting stuff to Factory (or Base:System, which does not really have a "project maintainer").
The only mandatory policy in that regard is to mention added or removed patches in the .changes file in order to be able to track them.
And even this is often questionable when it is only the obvouis post-release build fix which was already accepted upstream and will automatically be removed next version update because it will only reverse apply anyway. It's nice to have lots of policies to enforce and give people the power to reject the work of others, but don't be surprised if those othere decide to spend their time on more rewarding projects :-) -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org