[arch-dev-public] [signoff] shell rebuilds

Travis Willard travis at archlinux.org
Sun Dec 2 16:42:15 EST 2007

On Dec 2, 2007 4:30 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger at astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Travis Willard wrote:
> > That's not the way signoffs work.  You CAN'T just 'assume' they are fine.
> > You have to wait.  Sorry, but it breaks the whole system otherwise.
> Actually, these packages were already signed off by two devs: Dan for i686
> and me for x86_64. From an IRC discussion with Aaron, the devs who put the
> packages in testing counts as one of the two signoff. That might seem
> strange but it's the way it works unless the signoffs gets a better
> definition.

That doesn't seem sound to me.  Recall the problem when the kernel
package that was uploaded had something screwy in it due to a bad
transfer.  Under this situation, tpowa would have 'signed off' his own
upload, whoever built it for x86_64 would have signed it off for their
own upload, and then the buggy package i686 would have been pushed to

If that's how we want our signoffs, then that's fine - I'm just
pointing out a possible flaw.


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list