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
=> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <email@example.com> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro: <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>