On Freitag, 12. April 2013, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I don't understand the suggestion of Jenkins here at all - it sounds
> like major overkill to me.
yes, because you haven't understood the idea yet: check the logs on petterson and then parse these checks with a (dead-simple) jenkins job. So jenkins is just used for notifying about the result - which it does very nicely.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that other
> people are interested in helping here. But I think we're getting
> over-complicated for the sake of checking that checksums files have
> been signed...?
jenkins.d.n is already setup and adding such jobs is rather trivial.
http://jenkins.debian.net/view/d-i_misc/job/d-i_parse_build_logs/ is a rather similar job, which checks whether builds were succesful.
(And which is buggy atm, all build logs are fine atm. Gonna fix that now.)
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.