Re: Where did Bacula 1.38.11-7+b1 come from?
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:26:35PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > (This problem was reported in bug #411652)
> > I think someone deserves a serious thwacking... they obviously didn't
> > even try to install the result of the NMU, filed no bug about it, etc.
> The bug is that a binNMU for bacula was scheduled although it is not
> binNMU-able. Usually checking is done whether the package would break
> before triggereing the rebuilt. Looks like this was missed this time.
Well, no; it wasn't missed, it just isn't done these days, because the
fraction of the archive that's been fixed to be binNMU-safe is high enough,
and the number of packages that get binNMUed is great enough, that it's
simply more practical to binNMU and catch any breakage afterwards than to
try to sniff out all possible failures in advance.
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread,
http://ftp-master.debian.org/~vorlon/transition-binnmus.txt keeps a log of
/most/ binNMUs -- it doesn't even include one-off binNMUs that only apply to
a single architecture -- and records over 1000 to date. The rate of
problems these days seems to be better than 1 in 20 or 30; I'm sorry that
John was caught off-guard by one of these problems hitting his package in
particular, but with those odds it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of time
looking for problems that almost always aren't going to be there, and can be
quickly fixed if they are.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: