[Releasing] Testing: 08/29/2012 + na [fail]

[Stephen Kelly]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 18:22:25 Sergio Ahumada Navea wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On 08/29/2012 06:13 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > Report Date:                                      08/29/2012
> > Reporters Name:                                   Stephen Kelly
> > Package/Build date:                               08/29/2012
> > Package name:                                    
> > qt-linux-opensource-5.0.0-beta1-x86_64-ubuntu1204-offline.run
> > andqt-windows-opensource-5.0.0-beta1-x86-offline.exe Package type:       
> >                              Installer (Offline) Mkspec used:            
> >                          na
> > 
> > Is correctly signed:                              No
> 
> Can you create a bug report for this with the expected result ?

https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27063

> 
> > Displays appropriate gfx & strings & version no.: Yes
> > Offers the correct license(s):                    No
> 
> So, should we be offered the GPL license as well ?

I see no reason not to. 

> 
> > Offers sane default install directory:            No
> 
> What do you think a "sane default install directory" should look like ?

I think I mis-clicked. It did offer a sane default install directory.

> > Sets correct environment variables for shell:     No
> 
> Can somebody clarify what should we test here ? QTDIR does not sound 
> like something we should check to me. Marius S-O ?

It also makes sense to append/prepend the install prefix to CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH 
in that shell. I don't think that's a beta blocker though.

I don't think the package feedback form is telling enough about what is 
'expected' though, in general.

> 
> > Correctly creates Desktop shortcuts:              No
> 
> Can you please create a bug report ?

https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-27064

> 
> > Sets correct environment variables for shell:     No
> 
> Can somebody clarify what should we test here ? QTDIR does not sound
> like something we should check to me. Marius S-O ?
> 
> > Comments:
> > There is no sha1 information available to verify package signatures.
> 
> You mean md5sum's ?

Either md5sums or sha1sums. Or both. Any checksum would make it possible to 
verify the package is genuine. I think using sha1sums is more common due to 
md5 being cracked.

> > Assistant works correctly:                        No
> 
> Can you create a bug report or do you mean something like
> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-26677 ?

Yes, that is what I mean. I did not select to install the source component 
(why would I?). There is no indication that I need to install the source 
component in order to get documentation. 

I think that should be fixed for the beta.

Thanks,

-- 
Stephen Kelly <stephen.kelly at kdab.com> | Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090
KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/releasing/attachments/20120830/788f5624/attachment.sig>