Dear Karan, >> 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) That sounds very nice... > 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 ? .. and would work at least for me ;) Best Regards Marcus