I've manually uploaded some packages of mine which are quite down in the
re-building hierarchy, since they needed sourceful uploads for various
reasons (mainly newer upstream releases).
For all the remaining packages I suggest to ask for a batch of binNMUs.
Please say something if some packages of yours will need a sourceful
uploads and you prefer not to binNMU them. Not that for "small" changes
you can do the sourceful upload even after the binNMU, so the only cases
I've in mind here are those in which your sourceful upload would then
need another round of binNMUs for all its reverse build-deps. I hope
there are none.
To diminish the burden on the debian-releasers, I've asked on
#debian-release for the preferred way to ask for such an amount of
binNMUs. Luk told me that the mail should contain the usual binNMU
request lines [1], intermixed with dep-wait lines stating that a given
binNMU should not be performed before a given version of another package
has been rebuilt. The suggested format is something like:
foo dep-wait bar (>= x.y.z)
to state that package foo's binNMU should wait for package bar version
x.y.z to be available before being attempted. The line should be add
just after the line asking for the binNMU of foo.
We can send just one big mail to debian-release containing the binNMU
and dep-wait lines. I won't have time to do that before Wednesday
evening or maybe Thursday, so if someone else feels like to write the
mail, then please step in. Better would be to write a script which
parses the information we already have about OCaml-related packages and
generate the needed lines to be inlined in the email.
Before doing so, however, I suggest to look at our mother bug page [2],
to check if something relevant needs to be fixed in advance ...
issues in our monitoring infrastructure
---------------------------------------
While we are at task delivering :-), we also have a couple of bugs to be
tackled in the status page [3]:
- some packages are not listed there, for example Matita. So either the
package index is not updated (I vote for this) or something else is
b0rked
- some packages have never been listed in output even if the exists in
the package index. There should be some bug in the venomous code I
wrote to generate the page
Just in case someone has nothing to do from now until Wed ;)
Cheers.
[1] the format is described at http://wiki.debian.org/binNMU
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint=debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org
[3] http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{upsilon.cc,cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature