Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:29:46AM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 
> > Yes, but that would push complexity to the client side for no
> > particularly good reason.
> 
> The “client” here is dak, and the info could be pushed to UDD,
> if it isn’t already (didn’t check). That’s a one-off thing.

You don't appreciate the beauty of simplicity.

The whole binNMU thing is already a hack. Creating a new source
package, building it, and then *throwing* the source? That's *weird*.

Do we really want to increase the size of the hack?

As explained by Niels, the main reason we do binNMUs is that they are
a lot easier to do than sourceful-nmus-only-made-to-trigger-a-rebuild.

But once we are able to trigger a rebuild with sourceful NMUs, as
Ubuntu does, binNMUs will hopefully be a thing of the past.

Thanks.