Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 01:58:59AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > But binary NMUs are not much different from what I'm proposing,
> > especially if we're rebuilding each of these packages, or do I miss
> > something ?
>
> Consider the following:
>
> unstable:
> Version: 1.0-2
>
> Binary NMU for unstable:
> Version: 1.0-2.0.1
>
> Your suggested pre-tesing package:
> Version: 1.0-2.0.1
>
>
> IOW:
> There are two different packages with the same version number.
But:
- if they come into incoming the same day, the 1st one wins
- binary NMUs should AFAIU only occur when there's some
important-enough problem for 1.0-2 on a given arch, right ? Then
there is an arch-specific problem, and we can mandate that binary-only
NMUs are only to be done to fix an arch-specific RC bugreport, which
would then have prevented the attempt to promote into pre-testing.
So I'm not sure it's really a problem.
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <dirson@debian.org> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro: <yann.dirson@fr.alcove.com> | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
Reply to: