On 12/14/2013 02:25 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 14:45 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
Famous last words: Can't be that hard to write a script that compares 2
builds that they provide the have the same provides and requires and
filelists. :)
That's still not really enough; that metadata doesn't express anything
*close* to all the possible capabilities of a package. Not saying this
isn't a good idea, just that it should involve careful manual double
checking of compose logs and the like.
We already have AutoQA running rpmdiff and rpmguard tests on new builds,
btw. I doubt it would be difficult to hook this effort up to that AutoQA
stuff somehow so you can get nice rpmdiff/rpmguard results between your
test builds. tflink/kparal (CCed) may have some thoughts.
I'll definitely give those a try, thanks for the suggestions and ideas.
And yes, i agree that simply because the builds "appear" to be the same
doesn't mean they actually are.
But having a list of BRs that could potentially be removed is obviously
the first important step which has to be followed by a proper
verification that the actual new build without the BRs really does work
the same way as the old one and doesn't have any features removed
invisibly or some documentation instead of being regenerated just copied
or anything like that.
Regards, Phil
--
Philipp Knirsch | Tel.: +49-711-96437-470
Manager Core Services | Fax.: +49-711-96437-111
Red Hat GmbH | Email: Phil Knirsch <pknirsch@xxxxxxxxxx>
Wankelstrasse 5 | Web: http://www.redhat.com/
D-70563 Stuttgart, Germany
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
