On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:31:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:13:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:01:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:16:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > Anyway, the script I'm using for this is smart enough that it won't pick up > > > > any false-positives for packages you've already uploaded, because it knows > > > > not to try to binNMU packages that are sourcefully out-of-date on an > > > > architecture. > > > > Which is why, all I should need to know is the list of packages that are > > > > being renamed. :) > > > BTW, didn't we decide to add a 'ocaml-abi-<version>' virtual package which > > > would be depended on by all ocaml packages, so this one can be used as root of > > > the rebuild tree, without waiting for a list of any kind ? Or was it in the > > > kernel discussion that i proposed such an idea ? > > > Steve, do you think that this would be a good idea ? > > It doesn't seem to have any relevance to the question of binNMUing. > If all packages that depend on the ocaml abi version have a dependency on > ocaml-abi-3.09.[12], you need not ask those questions, and simply grep the > archive for all packages still depdending on ocaml-abi-3.09.1, and binNMU > them. So then I'll just be asking next time if there are any packages that need binNMUing that don't depend on ocaml-abi-3.09.2... which it seems there would be, because not all packages would have been rebuilt yet after adding the ocaml-abi-<version> virtual package... I think the existing virtual packages are just fine, I only needed someone to confirm for me whether the list of virtual packages I knew of was comprehensive. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature