Hi, On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:56:56AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:29:59PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > But once we are able to trigger a rebuild with sourceful NMUs, as > > Ubuntu does, binNMUs will hopefully be a thing of the past. > > Amusingly, the way we do it in Ubuntu is a huge hassle in some cases, > and at least some of us would rather have binNMUs. (That's partly > because it's a manual process; if it were automated it would be better, > but it still wouldn't solve the problem that in some cases you really do > want to do single-architecture rebuilds without having to rebuild a > stack of packages on slower architectures entirely unnecessarily. Hi, > Haskell.) Maybe one could generate a pseudo binary package for architectures not included in the binNMU, so that all architectures provide their binary packages with the same version. I think it easier to understand by giving an example: Let's assume a binNMU is needed for "demopkg" in version "23.42-1" for i386 and amd64. Current behaviour would result in: [amd64, i386]: 23.42-1+b1 [armel, armhf, arm64, mips, ...]: 23.42-1 The binNMU process could now prepare 23.42-1+b1 for all unaffected platforms automatically by downloading the existing binary package, updating the changelog file, increasing the version and saving it again. That would result in: [all architectures]: 23.42-1+b1 That should make it possible to have symlinks for /usr/share/doc/$pkgname from all to $arch (assuming "all" is also regenerated) and fixes the version mismatch problem regarding multi-arch. The obvious disadvantage is, that users will have to download a more or less unchanged package again. -- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature