Fedora.us QA (was: Re: Prelink success story :))

[Ville Skyttä]

On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 05:03, Erik LaBianca wrote:

> > "mach" is not mandatory. I've tried it once, long ago. Use what works
> for
> > you. It can be embarrassing if an approved package fails in the build
> > system.
> 
> Ok so it's not mandatory but it seems the sanest way to check
> buildrequires. Is it used for the fedora.us buildsystem or not?

Yes.  And no :)  A patched version of mach is a part of that beast,
documentation, patches etc about the current system are at
http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~ensc/fedora.us-build/

>  It
> doesn't make much sense to me for packages to pass QA that can't be
> built properly on the build system.

As pointed out elsewhere, fedora-rmdevelrpms from the fedora-rpmdevtools
package does a fairly good job (from the QA POV, not necessarily
otherwise) as well.