[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The wider implications of debhelper/dbus breakage

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.

The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is
trying to fool the system.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: