On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 02:54:53PM +0100, James Troup wrote: > Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes: > <snip> > Are you trolling? As I've said 3 times already (at least): because > they only affect one architecture. And because there are perfectly > valid reasons to do binary-only NMUs (which you seem to want to > ignore) [see my bash example in <[🔎] 87btnd29rb.fsf@nocrew.org>]. If the changes break the other architectures then the changes are BROKEN, learn how not to do it, simple.. We all make mistakes, its a fact of life, and there are some RARE cases where a binary only NMU is needed, however they are the EXCEPTION, not the rule.. Basicly, your argument of it only affecting one architectures is bogus, if your worried about your changes not working on other architectures then go over to master and compile it, if you need testers go over to #debian and ASK, if I'm there (nick Mercury, idle a LOT) and I use the package I'll test it for 80x86, so in the end, give one GOOD reason why they should be the norm, and the only affecting one architecture is not a good reason.. Zephaniah E, Hull.. -- > > > I think I could dig up complaints form *you* saying that. > > That would be a cunning trick. > > -- > James > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org >
Attachment:
pgp5Bz1LLGal_.pgp
Description: PGP signature