--- Begin Message ---
- To: tb@becket.net
- Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
- From: Mail Delivery System <Mailer-Daemon@becket.net>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:47:35 -0800
- Message-id: <E16Me3j-0003EM-00@becket.becket.net>
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
schmitz@mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de
SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM:<tb@becket.net>:
host opal.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.176.7]:
550 5.0.0 We don't accept mail from spammers
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <tb@becket.net>
Received: from tb by becket.becket.net with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
id 16Me3e-0003E6-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:47:30 -0800
To: Michael Schmitz <schmitz@mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cc: <debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org>, <debian-qa@lists.debian.org>,
<121459@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Re: microwindows build status
References: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.33.0201041907220.17741-100000@opal.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
X-Reply-Permission: Posted or emailed replies to this message constitute
permission for an emailed response.
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1F0A1E51 63 28 EB DA E6 44 E5 5E EC F3 04 26 4E BF 1A 92
X-Tom-Swiftie: "I just got some chicken wire," Tom said defensively
From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 04 Jan 2002 15:47:30 -0800
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.33.0201041907220.17741-100000@opal.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>
Message-ID: <[🔎] 87advtel0t.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Lines: 18
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Michael Schmitz <schmitz@mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de> writes:
> (I rarely do these
> days, rather rely on the maintainer to check build status and
> logs).
This is not such a good idea. Maintainers are generally not
responsible for checking build status and logs; the port maintainer
(whoever is responsible for making the binary NMU) should do that andn
file an RC bug.
Indeed, there are many packages that miss getting into testing because
of some problem uploading or building one port or another, and
maintainers in general seem to be totally unaware of these. I think
the people who take responsibility for uploading the binary NMUs for
various ports need to also take the responsibility for filing bugs
when things are failing.
--- End Message ---