On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 01:33:25PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 03:47:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Michael Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > (I rarely do these > > > days, rather rely on the maintainer to check build status and > > > logs). > > > > This is not such a good idea. Maintainers are generally not > > responsible for checking build status and logs; the port maintainer > > (whoever is responsible for making the binary NMU) should do that andn > > file an RC bug. > > > > Indeed, there are many packages that miss getting into testing because > > of some problem uploading or building one port or another, and > > maintainers in general seem to be totally unaware of these. I think > > the people who take responsibility for uploading the binary NMUs for > > various ports need to also take the responsibility for filing bugs > > when things are failing. > > I think that's a drastically unfair judgement. I would rather ask > every maintainer to do a few extra steps for the quality of their > packages (or better yet, to improve automated systems to notify > (opt-in) maintainers about such problems). The port maintainers
Such as the package subscription stuff just mentioned on debian-qa? I don't think having a brief email sent each time a package is autobuilt would be too much. (I'd prefer a single email sent when a new version is uploaded, build reports for all architectures, but I don't thik the buildd's are syncronized that well.) > already have a significant amount of work to do on this front, and are > generally package maintainers themselves also. > > Of course, I expect James to insert a comment here about how it isn't > really that much work... but we all accept that James is superhuman. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus
