On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 00:02 +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: > While I too might have some interest in developing particularly the > scientific > packages, Donnie's comment made me to wonder whether the idea of "support > teams" > (cf. arch testers) was buried?
Becoming an arch tester is (I think) still possible, and a sci tester is definitely possible. You need to answer the ebuild development quiz. People interested should read the pointers mentioned in a previous email of this thread, and mail me or [EMAIL PROTECTED] so we can gather all requests. > I think this idea that was mentioned in the previous thread would be > especially > suitable for the sci-team and its packages that often require, besides the > normal > ebuild practices, some special expertise to carry out full runtime testing. > Or would > these teams just mean extra work for the actual developers? Will a presumably > small > community using the scientific packages need this kind of an extra layer? Possible ways to have some tests procedures: - bugzilla: add the test procedure to an existing new package bug, or file a new bug properly assigned to the herd mentioned in the ebuild metadata.xml. - overlay: write test procedures, just as the emacs project did [1] I will see with overlay.g.o staff if we can open our overlay wiki to the gentoo science community and make it a more general wiki. -- Sébastien [1] http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/emacs
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
