Re: Where did Bacula 1.38.11-7+b1 come from?
Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:26:35PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> binNMUs are done without the bug-report. (It would be rather
>> pointless, since the maintainer himself cannot schedule binNMUs on
>> Debian's buildds.)
> This sounds inaccurate. binNMUs should still be in response to bugs wherever
> applicable, but they should close them unversioned since the BTS tracks
> source versions.
My point was rather that binNMUs need to be handled differently than
normal ones since there is a) no patch to apply and b the maintainer
has nothing to fix. Especially the normal "I did a NMU with the
atttached patch" bug reports are useless. Tracking binNMUs in the BTS is
not useful, the BTS is mainly for reaching the maintainer, having
bug-reports like this does not work:
* Dear maintainer, this package needs a binNMU for the libbar
translation. We'll schedule one. Please do nothing.
or
* We just triggered a rebuild of package bar. No patch was applied.
cu andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
Reply to: