Re: sawfish-gnome
[-ia64 Cc snipped]
On 22 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
>
> > On 22 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > A secondary question now is: do we have a mechanism to automatically
> > > detect this kind of problem?
> >
> > Not one that I know of. Which looks logical to me, since I'm afraid that
> > it's pretty hard, if not impossible, to automatically check this.
> >
> > OTOH, maintainers are usually pretty fast when it comes to having an
> > unbuilt package built and uploaded ;-)
>
> Um, no. The problem is that most maintainers don't bother to worry at
> all about whether their package gets into testing, and also don't
> really care to keep track of whether each autobuilder has done the
> right thing.
Ah? That's possible, but it appeared different to me.
Anyhow; I was confused a bit here. There was some other thing going on
with sword where I mailed an ash .changes instead of a sword one (yeah,
I really have to start paying attention again when signing .changes) as a
sword .changes. That is a type of mixup that's hard to detect; however,
the problems with sawfish (invalid gpg-signature) are automatically
detected by katie and friends.
--
wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be
"Human knowledge belongs to the world"
-- From the movie "Antitrust"
Reply to: