Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:32:38AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> >...
> > > 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
>
> There are two packages with the same version number.
Not in the archive, since only one of them will be able to reach
incoming, let alone one of stable/testing/pre-testing/unstable - or do
I miss something ?
> This might e.g. cause much confusion when someone reports a bug against
> version 1.0-2.0.1, and the problem is only in one of these two packages.
This can cause confusion if the debs for the binary NMUs are made
available before entering unstable, and are then either unable to
enter incoming, or rejected by katie. If not, I can't see what
problems can arise.
> 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 :)
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: