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).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
