Hi Phil, Am 17.05.2011 um 20:13 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Am 17.05.2011 um 18:47 schrieb Ben Walton: >>> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue May 17 12:40:46 -0400 2011: >>> >>>> Reguardless of what triggered it, I think that the mgar [re]package >>>> code, should refuse to continue if it attempts to package something >>>> with OPENCSW_REPOSITORY=.*UNCOMMITTED >>> >>> Actually, this should be a check added to checkpkg. The [re]package >>> target in mgar shouldn't care about this. >> >> I thought submitpkg already had a trigger in it refusing to submit >> uncommitted packages? > > It has yet to be proven or disproven whether or not the involved files > are committed, or uncommitted. > They may well be committed. > All we know for sure(until the original maintainer pipes up) at this > point, is that the pkginfo is not what is desired.
*If* pkginfo and/or the package name has "uncommitted" in the name the packaging directory in GAR has not been completely committed which is not good. A package resulting from such a build should not be released. Best regards -- Dago _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
