Hi Mark, On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:53, Mark Wielaard <[email protected]> wrote: > To be honest I think it will be easier to get the distros to do this for > us. They are much better at it and it saves you from endless discussion > of which architectures, platforms, compilers, libraries, configure/build > options, etc need to be supported.
There's the old debate over the "one true binary" vs. a set of binaries optimized for every particular platform. Each has their advantages. > Still, if they were around I would indeed take a look and compare stuff > a bit with my local builds if I had any strange test failures for > example. > > Fedora 9 binaries would be fine for me, I am on Fedora 10 already :) > Although my servers are a mix of Debian stable and CentOS 5. > >> > But how would be tag these builds as "official"? >> >> I'm not sure I understand the question. >> Here "official" means there's been some release engineering love >> and an expectation of a minimal level of quality. Let me expand on that a little. Every "build" coming from Sun has already had a significant amount of testing applied to it. For comparative testing, I would like to try the very same binaries that Sun must have already created. Martin
