| 1 |
On 25/11/16 17:51, Jason Zaman wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Automation |
| 3 |
>> ========== |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> It's easy to forget to check that all the required dependencies are in |
| 6 |
>> stable before filing a stabilisation test, but this wastes the actioning |
| 7 |
>> developer's time. I have prepared a bot that repoman checks the list of |
| 8 |
>> atoms and flags the bug appropriately. This allows easy filtering out of |
| 9 |
>> broken requests. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> This part would need to take into account DEPENDS ON in the bug too. |
| 12 |
> When I file my xfce lists I dep on the gnome stable bug since I need |
| 13 |
> the gtk stuff and if that isnt taken into account, repoman would just |
| 14 |
> die. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The bot will either try its best to take into account bug dependencies, |
| 17 |
or otherwise just give up and skip such a bug. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I just realized there is another rare issue that we may have to take |
| 20 |
> into account. Some sets of packages *must* be stablized in lockstep. For |
| 21 |
> regular sets of packages like eg xfce if you leave off a bunch of the |
| 22 |
> extras its no big deal. |
| 23 |
> Eg for SELinux, the policy packages must all be stabilized all at |
| 24 |
> once because they depend on each other (I think perl is like this too?). |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> We would need a way for maintainers to ask for testing without actually |
| 27 |
> committing. The maintainer can wait till everything is done and commit |
| 28 |
> everything at once himself. Some flag to make the tatt script skip the |
| 29 |
> step would be enough I think. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Do you have a bug number handy so I can double check how the process |
| 32 |
normally looks? |
Archives