Hobbsee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For FTBFS only bugs, with an eyeballable patch: > > Is it really necessary to go through with the 5 approvals, or 7 days, > whichever is longer?
I think even FTBFS fixes should be carefully reviewed. Imagine the case that we have working binary packages in the archive. Later, an updated package was ACCEPTED into the archive (either by uploading or syncing From debian). The new version now FTBFS. If we fix the FTBFS, we have other binary packges in the archive. These other packages may of course cause problems in these cases: * package is a library used by other packages * package is used as command by other package * package is a build-dependency of other packages Maybe there are other cases I missed here. I agree that we could use other rules for SRU-FTBFS fixes. But even they should be reviewed with care. They deserve another kind of report, though. PS: Happy birthday! ;) -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
pgpNdyDVBxg5S.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
