On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 09:40 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Jan 8, 2008 9:22 AM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9114> > > > > So...we have some issues here, and this got moved to core. I wanted to > > go back and see who signed off to see who tested, and am quite > > surprised to see not a single signoff for i686. Why on earth did this > > get moved out of testing? > > > > Usually I don't like to point fingers at a single person, but we had a > > clear breakdown of policy here, and its hard to spread the blame. > > Thanks for pointing this out Dan. It is true. We didn't have any > signoffs here for i686. I brought up the topic of testing, but do not > actually use any of the encryption and pgp type stuff, so wouldn't > even know where to begin. > > This little testing policy was put in place for a reason. Not to make > people's lives harder, but, in fact to make them easier. Less errors > are a good thing. And the first time we let our policy collapse, we > have (according to that bug report) at least 3 packages crashing due > to this update that was pushed to core inappropriately. > > Andy, next time please be more careful. Now we have to mop up a mess > created by being too hasty. > > So, do we rollback the libgcrypt in core, or do we wait? Jan, you > appear to have done some investigation - could you fill us in?
libgcrypt 1.4.0-1.1-i686.pkg.tar.gz is in core now. I disabled VIA padlock support and one of the reporters confirmed the bug as fixed with this version.