On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 09:53:56AM +0000, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 2010-03-28, Wouter Verhelst <wou...@grep.be> wrote: > > With old buildd, it was always possible to add this bug # after the > > fact. I don't know what the case is with new buildd/new wanna-build, but > > it might be a good idea to look into that... > > That hasn't changed. It's mildly annoying though that you cannot do > "file bug, mark package as failed with the bug number" in one step.
True. > You always have to wait for the BTS confirmation first. Perhaps it would be nice to talk to the debbugs maintainers and work out a way in which the BTS can inform wanna-build of a bug number without buildd admin intervention? Maybe this could work through something like X-Debbugs-Cc where the bts would pass on version, architecture, and package version in a machine-readable format. A mail processor on the wanna-build end could then parse that and add it to the right place in the database. Of course, that would prerequire that the bts track architectures, which it currently doesn't... It would certainly make sense to make this an automated process; there's really no need for the buildd maintainer to have to do this manually. -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100330085252.ga3...@celtic.nixsys.be
