Hi, Am Samstag, den 15.01.2011, 10:29 +0000 schrieb Philipp Kern: > On 2011-01-15, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva <marcot@debian.org> wrote: > > The best option to fix this issue I can see is if it was possible to do binNMUs > > for Arch: all packages. There are some options to workaround the fact that we > > can't binNMUs Arch: all packages, which are: change the -doc package to Arch: > > any; do sourceful uploads instead of binNMUs. Both options are not ideal, but > > I prefer the first, because sourceful uploads for a 200 package stack would > > need a lot of work. > > If the packages are team-maintained, nothing is stopping you from bumping the > revision with dch and do a build, sign, upload cycle. Indeed without source-only > uploads you need to build it once. But that's scriptable. (And you can even > cache the key's passphrase through gpg-agent.) it would be ok if we were allowed to do "dch; dpkg-buildpackage -d -S; debrelease". But actually building these 200 package manually on ones own workmachine, getting the order of building correct, installing dependencies and so on, without actually changing the package and just so that they are rebuild is quite a nuisance and thus a slight waste of developer resources and motivation. The buildds handle this much better due to BD-Uninstallable and not blocking someones’s laptop. And if there were autosigning in place (it is not yet, right?), the amount of human time required would drop to almost zero. (I know that I’m not actually helping to solve the problem, but I want to give a better picture of the work involved and how much the buildd infrastructure is relied upon by the Haskell team – thanks for that!) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part