On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:41:09AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 02:33:37PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > True. But it is possible to rebuild them anyway without waiting for the > > > maintainer? > > > You can NMU them for sure. Sadly, there is no arch:all buildd, which > > is maybe sth that we should fix, because the new python policy would be > > way more useful with an arch:all buildd. > > Erm, what part of the python policy would benefit from an arch:all buildd? > I would consider that a bug in the python policy, because anything in the > arch:all packages that would warrant rebuilds on changes of the python > implementations should be done using the hooks/maintainer scripts instead. the Provides: fields of packages that have some have to be updated through rebuild. Sorry, but I don't see how to get around that. > (egg info, AFAIR, is not in the python policy.) > Anyway, lack of buildds are not the reason that binNMUs are not supported > for arch:all packages. Sure, I never pretended that the lack of buildds is the reason for it. OTOH I'm not sure what the problem with arch:all buildds would be :) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpCVo4xgA_MH.pgp
Description: PGP signature