On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 16:55 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Will Woods wrote: > > Let's be a little more clear here - what the QA team actually does for > > packages in updates-testing is *verification*. Check package sanity, > > make sure programs don't segfault on startup, etc. > > > > I'm not expecting all testers to understand the functions of the > > packages as well as their maintainers. But anyone can tell if you missed > > some deps or your package doesn't start on x86_64. > > > > 1) I already verify my packages on x86_64 myself Sure, and most maintainers do. And that's wonderful. It means that the QA process will be very fast: "Oh, look, one of Hans' packages! This will be easy!" [mere minutes pass, most of which is downloading the packages] "Yep, everything seems fine. That Hans is one great packager!" [QA approves package, rel-eng signs it, all is right with the world] So it really shouldn't slow *you* down much at all. But it should help catch packaging / build mistakes made by *others* before they make it into the repo. > 2) starting libs is kinda hard > 3) Most missing deps are subtile and do not necesarry show when just running an > app > > It would be more usefull to check build-logs for things like: > -suspicious ./configure failures (due to missing BuildRequires) > -64 bit suspecious compiler output like cast from different size integer to > pointer (this could actually be automated) > > Checking for 64 bit suspicious compiler warnings in my experience finds far > more 64 bit bugs then just a quick test run, unless those 64 bit bugs happen to > be in the straight quick test run path. These are excellent recommendations. I'll be sure to put 'em up on the QA pages when we start putting together our testing guidelines. Thanks! -w
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
