Thread: Marmistrz's failed devel package - unexpected results/conclusions
View Single Post
szopin is offline szopin
2012-04-28 , 20:16
Posts: 2,076 | Thanked: 3,268 times | Joined on Feb 2011
#21
Originally Posted by javispedro View Post
Note that the popcorn comes from the fact that we are going to repeat (again) a discussion that has been made quite a few times, that usually gets little positive results (if any).
Sorry, too new to have experienced that (though I have been closely watching this forum for a year at least and I cannot for the life of me come up with similar thread/discussion, pls share)

I mean trivial as in "script that is doing that check is a few chars long". And buggy, as Estel commented.
Trivial cases of autobuilder checks I hope we are discussing. If so, we just agreed that AB while having limited ability to control packages submitted to it, lacks any degree of security control (if we'd start listing how many pakages have no maintainer as libxau6 we'd probably break this forum). True, but I know this only to be the case for -devel. Hoping this is not the case with extras(-testing)