|Re: flavors for testing packages by testing team|
[ Thread Index |
- To: <slitaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: flavors for testing packages by testing team
- From: Bruno Conde <blconde@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:08:41 -0300
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=zapps768; d=zoho.com; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; b=s8gzadtfJgMi+dNVs5RiG6I1U0k5VlkgWxj+4JGtkKwZkOpaKisdHzM1cO7H3u2TX8axNsnsi9XC hyvIbMZ7asilyPI7HXO+I9IJz7aEhA0hJn3SijZzdvFxtTwCkJZv
Hi to all,
This is my first message here in the list, and I don't know for sure how it works, but here it goes my observations to Rohit's e-mail:
I could test this kind of "test live cd" if someone make it, but I think the issue here is to fill the reports and whole testing environment; I didn't know it, and I'm pleased to know you folks are working on this. Sure I can help sending this kind of information.
About about the repositories, here's another suggestion: what about we focus on testing a few packages besides the core packages, the popular ones just like Rohit said, and leave the other to a community repo, as Debian's Contrib or Ubuntu's Community? I believe the "popular packages list" would be something like: Abiword, Gnumeric, OpenOffice, Firefox, Pidgin, some e-mail client (I deeply prefer Thunderbird than Sylpheed/Claws), MPlayer and/or GXine, Gimp and maybe others I'm forgetting.
And all these bring me to procedure question: what is the best way to quickly point out a problem, go straight report a bug to
http://labs.slitaz.org/issues or first post a thread in the forum? Because I asked myself about it when I posted this: http://forum.slitaz.org/index.php/discussion/1081/translation-for-abiword-gnumeric-pidgin-and-others/
---- On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:11:50 -0300 Rohit Joshi <rj.rohit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote ----
Claudinei and Linea are working towards creating a testing environment
for better quality management (http://labs.slitaz.org/wiki/packages).
Many people have shown interest in joining testing teams. But it seems
very few people contributed the test reports.
I think its a good effort but maybe we need to make it easier for
people to test. I personally do not like people criticizing SliTaz
devs over the forums that such an such thing have not been fixed for
over an year.
Pascal has recently announced a flavor contest
(http://mirror.slitaz.org/pizza/). All official flavors
(http://hg.slitaz.org/flavors/) can be automatically generated by
anyone within minutes.
So, maybe we simply create few 650MB testing flavors for each package
category (or probably just with popular packages). I believe such
large flavors can be generated based on low-ram / 3-in-1 flavor ( but
haven't really tested this theory myself).
I feel testing packages on liveCD is much easier. Furthermore, we can
generate a new testCD with any given snapshot of cooking repos.
One of the downside, however, is that this will not address all the
dependency issues that may happen on SliTaz Core CD. But, atleast ,
this may help to catch the problems faster. Moreover, we already have
implemented automatic dependency checking.
I look forward to hearing your ideas and suggestions.
SliTaz GNU/Linux Mailing list - http://www.slitaz.org/