Ross Walker wrote: > Ok, I'll play. Excellent! > How about, package maintainers will test that their package works > correctly on all architectures and platforms their package supports, > they will then submit the SRPM to enter in the next "scheduled" build > cycle, if it builds clean they should hear nothing, but if it fails > they should get the error report emailed back to them, they will then > need to fix and re-submit for the next build cycle. The CentOS team > will discard any new SRPMs that fail to build. This sort of a thing is easy, let me also plumb in a few more bits : people get 'version control' access, and can then submit and track packages in there, tag'g for builds - and results being immediately visible. With an automated just-build repo's that can be ( should be ? ) public. Allowing people to do whatever and how many ever builds they fancy before actually moving their packages ( and they should be able to do this on their own - with an automated process ) into the testing repo's on dev.centos.org (1) A policy can then be drafted on how and what moves from testing to stable. Where stable could be either Extras/ Contrib/ or Plus/. > This puts the pressure on the maintainer to make sure it is thoroughly > tested for all supported architectures and releases that they support. Sure, that works - however we can all share the pain a bit. The tricky situation however is going to be working out what is a workable packaging standard we could / would adopt. No reason why we cant go with the Fedora churnout. If that works for everyone ? - KB (1) might need some thinking around howto vaccumme and also resources on that dev.c.o machine - perhaps something to storm over later. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq