Re: The wider implications of debhelper/dbus breakage
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:57:25AM +0200, Steffen Moeller <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:57:25PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>>>> [Michael Biebl]
>>>>> Would it make sense to avoid the upload of "obviously" broken
>>>>> packages from buildds in the future. E.g. if lintian detects an
>>>>> error it would need some special inspection from the buildd uploader.
>>>> Don't all buildd binary packages already need "special inspection" from
>>>> a buildd uploader?
>>> I get somewhere between 30 and 100 mails success mails from my two
>>> buildds (voltaire and malo) on an average day. I do have a few mutt
>>> rules that highlight mails with obvious issues (so I can more closely
>>> inspect them before signing), but I seriously do *not* read all of them
>>> from start to end. I wouldn't be able to get any work done in that case.
>> Wouter's comment aside, checks at buildd level would be too late. It should
>> be the new queue that may perform a few checks, such that obviously broken packages
>> are not even forwarded to the builders.
> Except you wouldn't have detected the debhelper/dbus breakage at the new
> queue level.
Not? Was the originally uploaded package correct? Amazing. Hm. Then, it should be lintian
errors that denote a build as a failure, indeed, and these should somehow be detected by
the mechanism that uploads the packages ... not by the buildd admin.