Mike Hommey wrote: > 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.
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. Cheers, Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
