Re: arch-specific binary-only rebuild

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > > The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced
> > > > since I won't be uploading a new diff.gz to propagate a new
> > > > changelog.
> > > 
> > > If it's a new binary version, it should have source to go with it.
> > > And you can't reupload the binary package without a new version number.
> > 
> > No, it's a recompile-only of the source package.  
> > 
> > For instance, ``foo_1.3-1'' would be numbered ``foo_1.3-1.0.1''.
> > No new .diff.gz is uploaded.
> 
> But then 1.0.1 is a new version, and should have .dsc and .diff.gz to
> go with it.

Oh. Come on. I think Peter is allowed to do a binary-only NMU of his
own package, like everybody else :-)

This numbering scheme and its purpose is documented in the Developer's
Reference. Being the rationale the same (i.e. to not force a recompile on
every arch), I don't see a good reason why others are allowed to do this
when doing a binary-only NMU and Peter should not be.

Thanks.

-- 
 "ed67fcfd485c2343879df919cda9a63f" (a truly random sig)