On 4/8/2011 4:25 PM, Charlie Brady wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
>> On 04/07/2011 05:35 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> What sort of test would SL binaries fail that would keep them from being
>>> accepted in CentOS? Isn't that the kind of problem that has to be
>>> solved to speed up a release?
>>
>> No, the two things are orthogonal. Assurance that a package does what it
>> says its going to do is something that needs to be addressed
>
> I don't think so. I think that is upstream's problem. We need assurance
> that what is produced is functionally the same as what upstream produces
> (except for the very few areas where CentOS functionality differs).
And more relevant to my question - I thought that the time consuming
part of the process had to do with the binary compatibility checking and
the iterations to make that succeed.
Not that there is anything wrong with a fully automated and publicly
visible build/regression test facility, but if that's not the slow part,
how much can it help?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com