Re: The wider implications of debhelper/dbus breakage
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:44:54AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:19:50AM +0200, Steffen Moeller wrote:
> >>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.
> >
> >It's impossible to catch every issue in an automated way. There are
> >things that can be caught (such as, /maybe/, this), but you have to deal
> >with the fact that some things will still slip through the cracks.
> >
> >I'm also not at all sure whether sbuild runs lintian during the build.
> >Perhaps that would be good, though.
>
> AFAIK the FTP Team is working on a system to prevent uploads which
> have lintian errors. The whole category of lintian errors has
> already been assessed and possible overrides are planned to arrive
> in the NEW queue at least once... Please do note that I'm talking
> about errors, not about warnings.
Right. However, having sbuild run lintian would allow a buildd
maintainer to assess issues with packages by looking at *warnings*,
rather than 'just' errors. This isn't something an automated system can
do.
--
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.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html
Reply to: