[-ia64 Cc snipped] On 22 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 22 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > A secondary question now is: do we have a mechanism to automatically > > > detect this kind of problem? > > > > Not one that I know of. Which looks logical to me, since I'm afraid that > > it's pretty hard, if not impossible, to automatically check this. > > > > OTOH, maintainers are usually pretty fast when it comes to having an > > unbuilt package built and uploaded ;-) > > Um, no. The problem is that most maintainers don't bother to worry at > all about whether their package gets into testing, and also don't > really care to keep track of whether each autobuilder has done the > right thing. Ah? That's possible, but it appeared different to me. Anyhow; I was confused a bit here. There was some other thing going on with sword where I mailed an ash .changes instead of a sword one (yeah, I really have to start paying attention again when signing .changes) as a sword .changes. That is a type of mixup that's hard to detect; however, the problems with sawfish (invalid gpg-signature) are automatically detected by katie and friends. -- wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be "Human knowledge belongs to the world" -- From the movie "Antitrust"
