Les Mikesell wrote on 04/11/2011 06:58 PM:
On 4/11/2011 5:32 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
...
It's laborious, it's repetitive, it's boring, sometimes it's time-consuming but it's really NOT difficult.
That depends on where and whether you can find the component(s) that were missing or the wrong version. But, it seems that if you have an after-the-build test, there might be a way to predict what you need to pass that test ahead of time - or at least to run all of the possible combinations in parallel if you really have to do trial-and-error.
Sounds a bit too much like AI to me.
Johnny addressed finding the components earlier, and they may not be discoverable.
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-April/109631.html
If you have a way to do those predictive tests, in serial or parallel, I'm sure that would be a valuable contribution. The possible combinations quickly lead to a combinatorial explosion. Software regression testing is a science in its own right.
I think the best a community project can do on testing such packages is by flagging them for attention in a more open process with more testers.
Phil