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. The idea with lintian I seems just fine to me - it just needs to happen earlier. Steffen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
