On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 03:38 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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. ftr, i've been on the recieving end of this, and it led to quite a bit of confusion before i figured out what was going on. if nobody wants to spend the time making sure it doesn't break dependencies etc, maybe the folks responsible for binNMU'ing the packages could put a little something at the end of the process to throw an email to the package maintainers saying "hey, we just binNMU'd your package, here's why and what you should check for..." etc? sean
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part