[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Testing CD images (was Re: ITP seahorse)

On Wed, 24 May 2000, Ben Collins wrote:

> It takes a trivial amount of time to simply look at the build log and
> mount each cd image via loopback and do a ls -lR to make sure the image
> can be read. In fact, it can probably be automated.

Please provide some script. Phil doesn't like to do too much by hand.

>    Heck, even just
> looking at the stuff would have caught the m68k problem. I caught that the
> first time I tried a full build for all archs just 4 days ago.

The "official test-cycle-1" images were probably already built by then. And
Phil is absolutely not going to solve any m68k building problem which is not
his fault and about which he doesn't know anything at all. I suppose he
spotted the problem, but left the two other images just there so that the
responsible people would notice and do something about it. I think that's one
of the purposes of Test Cycles.

> This is the first time we have done test cycles. I think the test cycles
> images should be considered "official" in the sense that they are produced
> and used for this testing cycle. So they should be signed by a Debian
> developer for the test cycle. Everything else that Debian distributes is
> trusted because it is signed. Trusted that it is not from some place else
> and that it has gone through some degree of checks (in the case of
> packages, it must bypass dinstall). I don't see why CD's are any
> different.

Well, maybe Phil didn't sign the md5sums just to indicate that the images
should _not_ be trusted. They're testing images, after all.

> > 
> > Not exactly, but sufficiently close. All testing images are labeled as such
> > (the volume label, .disk/info and the README.{txt,html}). Once it is approved
> > as "official", we'll have to rebuild the images with just those indications
> > changed to "Official". Anything else on those CDs should remain the same.
> IMO, the official images should be built by a Debian person anyway. That
> way it can be signed and trusted. Nothing personal against you. As far as
> test images, they should atleast be signed and verified by a Debian
> developer.

With "we" I was referring to "the CD team" of which I happen to be the "acting
PR officer" ;-)  I don't build the images myself, I don't sign them, and I
don't want to either. Phil Hands is doing a perfect job, within the given

  Anne Bezemer

Reply to: