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

Re: Question on why package was rebuilt



On Thu, 2024-02-15 at 16:20 -0800, Loren M. Lang wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I recently had a package sponsors and entered into unstable called tiv.
> It can be seen here:
> 
> https://packages.debian.org/sid/tiv
> 
> Everything went OK, but I see that the amd64 arch package appears to
> have been re-built for some reason. It's version is showing up with a
> +b1. I am curious if there is some long to indicate what the issue might
> have been that led to a rebuild. Could there have been a compilation
> issue or other things I should be concerned about or is it likely
> something harmless? Is there a log for this case?

  There's no cause for concern -- it's a normal part of a new package
entering the archive.

  When a package is uploaded to NEW, you have to upload both the source
and binary package(s) for review. After the package is accepted, the
buildds auto-build for any other architectures that don't already have
a binary package. Migration policy requires all packages to be built on
official buildds from their source package[1]. Since the amd64 binary
package already existed from the upload to NEW, it wouldn't be auto-
built and would block migration of your package to testing.

  The "+b1" indicates a binBMU was performed[2,3]. If you look at the
buildd logs (https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=tiv),
you'll see the relevant changelog entry for the amd64 package: "Rebuild
on buildd".

Mathias

[1] -- https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#source-and-binary-uploads
[2] -- https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#source-nmus-vs-binary-only-nmus-binnmus
[3] -- https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#recompilation-or-binary-only-nmu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: