Re: [cjwatson@debian.org: Accepted grub2 2.02~beta2-7 (source i386)]
Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> writes:
> On 11/03/14 10:50, Colin Watson wrote:
>> "Distribution: unstable". Whoops. It is far too easy to make this
>> mistake with sbuild if you're not quite paying absolutely perfect
>> attention. My apologies ...
> On the Lintian side of things, I attached a patch to
> <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=542747> in 2010 and
> am still waiting for comments.
> My patch just looks for Distribution=unstable, Changes=experimental
> because that's the most annoying case ("I uploaded a version that
> wasn't ready and now I have to use an epoch to roll it back").
[...]
> Russ said
>> I think we only want to do this check if the first line of the
>> Changes file says UNRELEASED, since there are valid use cases for a
>> mismatch otherwise.
> but I don't know what those valid use-cases are. BinNMUs in testing
> for a package uploaded to experimental, possibly? Anything else?
The use case that I was thinking of is not really a Debian use case. It's
relatively common for people with separate repositories to build once and
upload multiple times to different distributions if the same package can
work on multiple distributions and their archive software requires that
(as debarchiver, for example, did, or at least it was the easiest way to
make the right thing happen).
That said, one, this is an outside-of-Debian use case, so per Lintian's
normal design philosophy, we should only take those into account if they
don't stand in the way of detecting bugs in Debian. This clearly would
detect bugs in Debian. Also, now that reprepro is more widespread and
doesn't require this sort of workaround for not having simple distribution
migration, it's not clear that use case is particularly important any
more.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: