Re: binNMU or reproducible builds (choose only one)
2015-09-27 17:54 GMT+02:00 Paul Wise <email@example.com>:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> Let's answer that one, and if the answer is "lets drop binNMUs", then we can
>> work towards source-based auto-NMUs being at least as easy to use/trigger as
>> binNMUs currently are.
> I guess automated source-NMUs would be useful for automatic rebuilds
> of architecture all binary packages too, which is occasionally needed.
At Tanglu, we can use such a tool, which basically just adds a new
changelog entry to the package (generating a new source package) and
then has dak import it.
This only works with source format 3.0 though (otherwise we would have
to edit a .diff, which is even more ugly), and there could be some
drawbacks of this approach, since a few packages need to run custom
scripts taking the version number in the changelog into account.
So far, we haven't found issues with this, though.
But since not every package is using the 3.0 source package format,
and sometimes it's just easier to do manual uploads to catch
everything, doing sourceful rebuild uploads like in Ubuntu is still
the most common way for us to rebuild things.
Debian Developer | Freedesktop-Developer
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/