[arch-dev-public] package signoffs

Paul Mattal paul at mattal.com
Tue Feb 9 09:34:27 EST 2010

On 02/09/2010 08:57 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 09.02.2010 14:34, schrieb Dan McGee:
>>> 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].
> I remember the discussion. The problem was that the i686 package got
> corrupted during upload.
>> 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.
> ... or that nobody tried it (as probably nobody tried testing/openvpn,
> one of the core packages that barely any developer uses).

I like a way I've seen Aaron do this-- when signoffs are not 
forthcoming on something, it's okay to have someone signoff as 
"responsible" in such a scenario, without actually testing. It's an 
"I take responsibility", which certainly it isn't the same as a 
test, but is at least a somewhat higher bar in practice, since 
nobody wants their name explicitly associated with broken stuff.

- P

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list