On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > There in fact WAS peer review of this code. There WAS an audit which > in fact has resulted in an upstream rewrite. This was already pointed > out to you.
I fail to see the link between the fact you added setuid rights and that the upstream code got reviewed at some point. Care to elaborate ? > > A person who ignores pointers to failed build logs when they are handed to > > him and insists instead that his package has no release-critical bugs should > > not be allowed archive upload access. > > As reported back then, I could not reproduce that failure to build. It > took several days until the Python transition had completed and > required dependencies had trickled down to Testing, at which point I > could finally reproduce the issue and fix it. This is a pretty lame excuse. I used to use testing as my main desktop machine, but you always can setup a sid chroot for your Debian development. In fact, you _HAVE_ to use sid to make sure that your packages build in a sid environment similar to those of the buildd. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
