Re: Where did Bacula 1.38.11-7+b1 come from?
Le Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 08:36:26AM -0500, Matthias Julius a écrit :
> John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:13:07AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >> > binNMUs though. Aren't buildds simply there to build the existing
> >> > sources on other platforms? Surely some human was involved here?
> >>
> >> wanna-build and buildd have been modified a while back to be able to do
> >> binNMU's. The only human involvement is when a given package is marked
> >> in the database as 'requires a binNMU', and when the buildd admin later
> >> signs the package, as usual.
> >
> > Would it be possible to record the name of the human that marked the
> > package in debian/changelog? That would be a big help, I think (and
> > hopefully avoid a discussion on debian-devel next time it happens)
>
> Since this is about a binNMU where the source package is not touched
> and the changelog lives inside the source package how is that supposed
> to be possible?
>
> Adding to the changelog requires a new upload.
Would it be that a bad idea ? There has been a lot of talk explaining
that there is no need to leave written justifications for binNMUs, but I
think that we are stil clueless about the problem it was supposed to
solve in the case of Bacula...
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Wako, Saitama, Japan
Reply to: