Re: The wider implications of debhelper/dbus breakage

[Philipp Kern <trash@philkern.de>]

On 2009-07-18, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
> Ah, so this is about not interfering with testing migration, I guess?

It's not only testing migration.  As an example: If you have a large chain
of binNMUs which all need some dep-wait on a package upper in the chain
you get the effect that the whole thing takes several days just because
each step of the chain first blocks on signing and uploading once a day to
do the next one.  Even if the once a day doesn't hold it still affects
slow architectures.

I see it like Luk that we want porters to care about logs of build
failures.  I don't see why anyone should get bothered by the huge bunch
of successful logs.  Of course it can be scripted, but then, why are
we even putting the human in between of this.  If it's just about some
simple regexp to highlight them we can also weed out known patterns on
the buildd and pass them on for manual review.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern