Policy when dependencies break on updates?
orcanbahri at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 13 02:11:08 CEST 2008
> In livna I now and then after a while simply went forwarded
> and just
> fixed the problem without waiting for the maintainer. Like
> I fixed the
> xmms-mp3 problem there (xmms-mp3 hasn't had a real
> owner there, so I
> could just do it directly) a few days ago with a updated
> spec file I got
> from Paul (the xmms maintainer in Fedora). I forwarded it
> to Xavier (who
> maintains xmms-mp3 for RPM Fusion), but afaics he
> didn't commit it for
> RPM Fusion yet (maybe I should have told him more about the
> but I was in a rush...).
> But simply fixing a issue like that often might have side
> someone that is not really familiar with the package
> doesn't know about.
> Sometimes those are that bad that it might be better to
> leave things
> broken until the package maintainer (or someone else that
> is familiar
> with the package) has a proper (interim-) solution.
I understand. But we shouldn't forget that all such issues will build up towards the reputation of the repository in user's mind, and in turn, towards the reputation of Fedora.
> So each of those problems need to be fixed differently.
> Maybe we can
> work out policies to handle those situations more efficient
> in the
> future, but I'm not sure if that really is worth the
> work. I'd say for
> now we just wait and look how things work out.
Yes, let have things settled first; but in the future a warn-the-maintainer mechanism as was suggested will surely smoothen things out.
I just wanted to brainstorm about an issue that I found important but I also know that people are busy with other important things. It was my 2 cents.
More information about the rpmfusion-developers