> The setups we planned to be identical, but separately set up to test that > the 'packaging recipes' work. I think that has quite well been achieved, > and it is now just maintaining the two if we want to keep both running.
The differences in the current packages indicate that the packaging setups are still not identical. There are still some problems that are only seen in the qt-project packages and not in the corresponding Digia package, or vice-versa. There are some strings and look-n-feel items that are still different between the installer wizards also. >>2) Choose one set of packages, test only those, and shut down the other >>system because nobody will be doing anything useful with its output. > >My preference for #2 - unless we suddenly get a lot more resources to do >the testing we would be better off with just one set. Ok, for now I'll concentrate on testing only the Digia-generated packages as they seem to be a little better than the qt-project ones, though until/unless the scripts for source packages and the binary build step become public, I won't be able to make any fixes myself. Currently, http://releases.qt-project.org/digia/ has binary packages, but not source packages. Can you arrange for the source packages to be published there too? -- Jason _______________________________________________ Releasing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing
