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 either... I'm just not seeing the substantive difference and hence the difference in treatment. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature