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

Re: The wider implications of debhelper/dbus breakage

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:57:25AM +0200, Steffen Moeller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> 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.


Reply to: