Panu Matilainen wrote: > For one it should be such that it's easy to verify that two reviews got > the same results. Currently since everybody uses slightly different format > of QA reviews you need to look very carefully to spot possible differences > (meaning the package has been changed since previous check which could > mean something nasty is going on) in two reviews and is prone to > human error. This is the point of a standardized format, and the QA script can make it easier. > For source md5sum's I'd say mark any source checked against upstream with > (ok) or such, for sources that can't be verified from web do include > md5sum for it anyway, it allows checking if the file has changed from one > version to another for example. OK, I've applied your suggestions on the wiki page. Does this fill your needs ? > This is very welcome.. while the QA cannot be completely automated (eg you > can't just blindly trust whatever happens to read as the package source > url, it could be somebody's own website with hacked tarball, human sanity > check is needed) removing boring, error prone manual steps from it is a > Good Thing. Totally agreed. Thanks for your support. Aurélien -- http://gauret.free.fr ~~~~ Jabber : gauret@xxxxxxxxxxxxx L'expérience est quelquechose que l'on acquiert juste après en avoir eu besoin.
