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

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 05:13:24PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > There's often no arch-specific RC bugreport for problems that are fixed 
> > > by binary NMUs.
> > 
> > I'm precisely suggesting there should be.  Maybe we miss a feature in
> > debbugs, to avoid mass-filing, where a given bug may relate to a
> > number of packages, and needs to be "fixed on behalf of" all those
> > packages to be really closed - that would avoid useless the
> > tons-of-rc-bugs one may fear when reading this suggestion :)
> No matter how bug reports are filed, bug reports that are closed a few 
> minutes later by a binary NMU would have exactly zero effect on testing 
> or anything else.

My idea was that it could be used so that the pre-testing buildd does
not attempt to make a binary NMU that would be known to cause a
conflict with upcoming binary NMU.

But this would enforce that a rebuild would have a heavier weight than
the binary NMU, which may not be what we want (see previous mail).

OTOH, there would probably be no meaning to using non-zero version
components for both binary-NMU and pre-testing-rebuild digits:

- Pre-testing rebuilds would just ignore previous binary-NMUs
	=> suggests higher weight for rebuild

- Binary NMUs on package that already entered pre-testing may be
  useful ?
	=> suggests higher weight for rebuild anyway

So finally, maybe shifting the binary-NMU position to the 4th one
would be the way to go...

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: