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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
