[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: retriggering the building of a package on all archs

On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 01:19:24AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 06:12:27PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 08:51:07AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > I can also reupload a new version of B, but it would be inappropriate
> > > since nothing changed in that package.
> > I think it's the preferred method, though.  Certainly I've had bugs filed on
> > my packages to upload a new version so that the package gets rebuilt against
> > a new ABI.
> Which is not the same thing.  If a package is built against the wrong
> ABI across architectures and needs *re*built, a sourceful upload is the
> right solution; if the package has not yet been built because it
> couldn't be, a sourceful upload is spurious but also happens to be the
> most expedient approach.

Why are the two situations different?  In both cases, the dependent package
has had no changes made, but needs to be rebuilt against another package
which *has* changed.  The only difference I can imagine is that the
dependant package hasn't been built on all architectures; however, in the
case I've been involved with, my package hadn't built on all architectures

I'm just not seeing the substantive difference and hence the difference in

- Matt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: