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