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

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.


- 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.

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: