[arch-dev-public] package signoffs

Dan McGee dpmcgee at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 08:34:58 EST 2010

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Am 09.02.2010 13:12, schrieb Paul Mattal:
>> I think the signoffs are more useful as a "sanity check" than a test of
>> the newly-implemented functionality. I think the primary benefit of
>> signoffs is catching obvious regressions, more than making sure we, in
>> fact, did close bug #83446 completely and correctly.
> Most importantly, the signoffs are there to verify that neither the
> package files nor the contained binaries are corrupted. An i686 signoff
> is still necessary to see that the package installs fine and the
> binaries actually execute - an x86_64 signoff will tell you that the
> commands in the PKGBUILD are sane, but not that nothing got corrupted.

Remember that one of the original reasons we went to a "draconian"
signoff policy was due to an unbootable kernel getting into [core]. We
haven't had that happen again so something worked here. When you look
at it that way, a signoff from another person is essential to prove
that it didn't break badly. No noise for a week however does make it
pretty likely that nothing broke.


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list