is the push process stalled somehow?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:50:41 +0100, Thorsten wrote:

> On 12.01.2009 11:27, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> > 
> > I was wondering what is holding up the push process. I did build
> > gnome-mplayer-0.9.3-2 and gecko-mediaplayer-0.9.3-2 a few days ago, and
> > they still did not appear in testing. Is this some issue with push
> > scripts, or just lack of time to fire up the push?
> 
> The new xine-lib-extras-nonfree packages (that have a hard dep on the 
> xine-lib from Fedora that are not pushed yet afaics; I guess they get 
> out later today/early tomorrow) are in the needsign queue (there was a 
> mail about it a few days ago on this list). Hence if I want to do a RPM 
> Fusion Free push without them then I need to either
> 
> (1)  move xine-lib-extras-nonfree out of the needsign repo, push, move 
> back, recreate repodata for needsign (the latter is not needed for 
> xine-lib-extras-nonfree, but for things like ffmpeg, as other thigns 
> might need it as BR) -- error prone and a bit more work than usually
> 
> (2) Push the package kind of manually with the individual scripts from 
> the push script one of the other -- less error prone than (1), but a bit 
> more work than (1)
> 
> (Mschwendt might correct me if there are more/better ways.)
> 
> I can do one of the above (did (1) a few times already in the past) if 
> there are good reasons to. Are there?

There's still the "blacklist" files, which can exclude packages in
needsign from being pushed [1]:

  echo "xine-lib-extras-freeworld" >> rpmfusion_free-10-blacklist.txt

in the pushscript directory. One src.rpm %name per line. FE used these
lists for ignoring packages that create broken deps. Packages will stay in
needsign, however, and are available in the buildroots.

-- 
[1] The feature could be enhanced to create better filenames, which take
into account the two EPEL/Fedora flavours.