On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:57:25AM +0200, Steffen Moeller <steffen_moel...@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. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
