Request for Testers for YellowDog extras

[Andrew Zschetzsche]

Richard June wrote:

>On Tuesday 29 March 2005 00:43, Andrew Zschetzsche wrote:
>  
>
>>I have a few questions regarding the extras testing branch.
>>
>>1.  What is "testing"?  Is it that the program installs with out a hickup?
>>    
>>
>Testing is my branch of YDL extras. Bare minimum they build. Although I 
>usually do try to verify that they at least start. Many of the packages are 
>ports of fedora-extras packages.
>  
>
I meant "what do you consider the act of testing a package", but that's 
my fault.  I'm still a bit shaky, do _you_ verify that they start, or is 
that the job of the me, the tester?  Basically, I want to know what I 
should do, so I don't waste our time, or give back false info.

>>2.  Can regulars to the list submit binary rpm's?  And where?
>>    
>>
>No.
>  
>
But we can suggest. :)  Thanks.

How does this sound.  What if I take a source tarball, make a source rpm 
from it, and post that on some personal webspace of mine and the e-mail 
you the link.  Then you can rebuild it, check it, and dump it into the 
testing branch.

Is there a concern for product tampering in this situation? (In which 
case, I totally understand the importance of denying any such offer of 
the like.)

I'd like to help with the creation of packages, since that takes the 
most time and effort, which most people are unwilling to give up (no 
offense to anyone).

>>2a.  I don't quite have a stock machine anymore.  If we want to submit
>>something, should we submit a source rpm, or the binary?  Are the
>>submitted/suggested packages compiled on a known stock machine?
>>    
>>
>that's ok, if you can mail me a *LINK* to the srpm, I'll rebuld it and try to 
>basic sanity check it, then drop it into ydl extras testing and announce it 
>to the ydl-extras list. *if* enough people say, "yeah it works" without any 
>bugs, we'll move it into testing.
>  
>