[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs



Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> writes:
>> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
>> >> > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's
>> >> > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining.
>> >> 
>> >> Then he should send patches and bug reports to the debian
>> >> package. 
>> >
>> > When the sbuild package got orphaned two years ago or so, I asked Ryan
>> > whether he would like to maintain it, and he said he was not interested.
>> > Which is totally fine for me and about everybody else.
>> >
>> >> This split between the user/developer visible sbuild and the secret
>> >> actual buildd is just not in the spirit of Debian.
>> >
>> > 1. Please drop the `secret' immediately.  Unless you really want to call
>> > http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd `secret'.  That your mail got resent
>> > with the this subject to debian-devel-announce is already stressing it
>> > *a lot*, IMHO.
>> 
>> The subject and initial mail is not about sbuild being secret but
>> about the overall change for Debian. I think that one is
>> justified. Nothing to do with this subthread.
>
> Right, these are two different things.  However, the binNMU change is
> mostly/only useful for the release managers and buildd admins, so I fail
> to see why not having documented/announced it less than a week after its
> implementation should imply it was done in `secret', as those people are
> busy with the next library transition. To make this clear, I totally
> welcome your post documenting the new binNMU features while the authors
> have been too busy to do so for now.

The point is that the way binNMUs are done (and accepted by DAK) was
_changed_ without discussion or announcement. What should have been
announced was disabling the old manual binNMU feature.

The problem is that people did a binNMU and DAK refused it out of the
blue. The initial mail is just to prevent that in the future.

MfG
        Goswin



Reply to: