Andreas Metzler wrote: > On 2006-07-31 Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 10:36:24AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: >>> On 2006-07-20 Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 11:02:49AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > [...] >>> Could you please schedule a +b2 binNMU for amd64 and s390? These two >>> archs had an old +b1 binNMU and where not rebuilt. (I'll try to >>> provide this kind of information when I request a rebuild next time.) > >> Queued now. > [...] > > Built and uploaded, now. ;-) > > In which form would I need to provide NMU requests to generate as > little work for you as possible? Is this ok, or is their another > representation you'd favour (perhaps you need the complete Debian > version for example)? > > --------------- > gsasl (amd64 and s390 +b1, all archs except s390 need a rebuild.) > --------------- wanna-build -b amd64/build-db -d unstable --binNMU 2 -m "Rebuild against libtasn1-3" gsasl_0.2.12-1 wanna-build -b alpha/build-db -d unstable --binNMU 1 -m "Rebuild against libtasn1-3" gsasl_0.2.12-1 wanna-build -b arm/build-db -d unstable --binNMU 1 -m "Rebuild against libtasn1-3" gsasl_0.2.12-1 wanna-build -b hppa/build-db -d unstable --binNMU 1 -m "Rebuild against libtasn1-3" gsasl_0.2.12-1 wanna-build -b i386/build-db -d unstable --binNMU 1 -m "Rebuild against libtasn1-3" gsasl_0.2.12-1 wanna-build -b ia64/build-db -d unstable --binNMU 1 -m "Rebuild against libtasn1-3" gsasl_0.2.12-1 wanna-build -b m68k/build-db -d unstable --binNMU 1 -m "Rebuild against libtasn1-3" gsasl_0.2.12-1 wanna-build -b mips/build-db -d unstable --binNMU 1 -m "Rebuild against libtasn1-3" gsasl_0.2.12-1 wanna-build -b mipsel/build-db -d unstable --binNMU 1 -m "Rebuild against libtasn1-3" gsasl_0.2.12-1 wanna-build -b powerpc/build-db -d unstable --binNMU 1 -m "Rebuild against libtasn1-3" gsasl_0.2.12-1 wanna-build -b sparc/build-db -d unstable --binNMU 1 -m "Rebuild against libtasn1-3" gsasl_0.2.12-1 This would probably be as little work as possible, though if you provide <package_version>, which architectures and why it's supposed to be binNMUed, I think that should be fine too ;-) Can someone please schedule the binNMUs? Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature