Improving http://release.debian.org/wanna-build.txt
http://release.debian.org/wanna-build.txt
(which seems to be the only description of the syntax for give-backs)
does not list debian-wb-team@l.d.o, and lists the architecture dependant
list only in the intro, which makes it easy to miss them.
How about adding some more hints to it (like for example in the
attachment)?
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
Asking for wanna-build actions on debian-release
================================================
Intro
-----
Members of the release team have wanna-buildd access, and can perform
actions as needed, if appropriate. In particular, the release team takes
care of scheduling all binNMUs, and can also perform other actions,
particularly if they are blocking some package from migrating to
testing.
For actions other than binNMU requests, though, please always try
mailing <arch>@buildd.debian.org or debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org first.
When receiving requests, we'll assume you have done so already.
Syntax
------
Send a mail to <arch>@buildd.debian.org, debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org
or debian-release@lists.debian.org (see above) with a more or less
descriptive subject, and requests in the format described below. Please
also include in the body any needed explanations, such as "build
dependencies should be installable now", or (always) the reason a
particular binNMU is needed.
Each request goes in its own line, and specifies the type of request, a
list of packages with versions, and a list of arches. All arches apply
to all packages, so if two packages do not exactly share the list of
arches, it's wiser to just give each package its own line.
For dep-waits and binNMUs, a list of packages on which to dep-wait or a
changelog entry, respectively, is needed. These are specified with -m,
please do not forget it.
The syntax is (note the dots, they are required):
<gb|dw|nmu> PKGS_VER . ARCHES [ . -m 'changelog entry/dep-wait expr.' ]
gb is a give-back, dw is dep-wait, and nmu is a binary NMU. In the list
of arches, "ALL" will be expanded to all release arches, see the example
below.
Notes
-----
* If you are asking for a dep-wait, an additional give-back is not
needed.
* If your request is for a dep-wait to be cleared, the syntax would be:
gb pkg . arch . -o
* If you're asking for binNMUs for a transition, you need not use this
syntax, nor give a comprehensive list of packages: the release team
has tools to auto-generate it, and will do so anyway. Just mention if
any package should *not* be binNMUed for some reason.
Full examples
-------------
To: debian-release@lists.debian.org
Subject: Please binNMU foo and bar against fixed libfrob
Hello,
there was a bug in libfrob (<= 2.1-3) that made packages built against
it DT_NEED libfrog1 instead of libfrob1. Only foo and bar seem affected.
New libfrob is not built everywhere yet, some dep-waits are needed.
Also, libfrob's build-dependencies are installable on alpha now.
nmu foo_4.3-3 . ALL -i386 . -m 'Rebuild against fixed libfrob, see #111.'
nmu bar_2:1.0-7 . ALL . -m 'Rebuild against fixed libfrob, see #111.'
dw foo_4.3-3 bar_2:1.0-7 . alpha ia64 hppa . -m 'libfrob1 (>= 2.1-4)'
gb libfrob_2.1-4 . alpha
Thanks.
--
To: debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org
Subject: Please retry libfrob reverse-dependencies
Hello,
libfrob (<= 2.1-3) could not be installed on some architectures due to
a bug now fixed, that made packages build-depending
in it fail on those architectures. Those can be retried now.
dw foo_4.3-3 bar_2:1.0-7 . alpha ia64 hppa . -m 'libfrob1 (>= 2.1-4)'
Thanks.
--
To: kfreebsd-amd64@buildd.debian.org
Subject: Please retry libfrob reverse-dependencies
Hello,
libfrob (<= 2.1-3) could not be installed on kfreebsd-amd64 due to
a bug now fixed, which caused package foo to fail to build.
dw foo_4.3-3 . kfreebsd-amd64 . -m 'libfrob1 (>= 2.1-4)'
Thanks.
--- wanna-build.txt.orig 2009-11-10 21:25:08.000000000 +0100
+++ wanna-build.txt 2009-11-10 21:39:09.000000000 +0100
@@ -11,14 +11,15 @@
testing.
For actions other than binNMU requests, though, please always try
-mailing <arch>@buildd.debian.org first. When receiving requests, we'll
-assume you have done so already.
+mailing <arch>@buildd.debian.org or debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org first.
+When receiving requests, we'll assume you have done so already.
Syntax
------
-Send a mail to debian-release@lists.debian.org with a more or less
+Send a mail to <arch>@buildd.debian.org, debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org
+or debian-release@lists.debian.org (see above) with a more or less
descriptive subject, and requests in the format described below. Please
also include in the body any needed explanations, such as "build
dependencies should be installable now", or (always) the reason a
@@ -58,8 +59,8 @@
any package should *not* be binNMUed for some reason.
-Full example
-------------
+Full examples
+-------------
To: debian-release@lists.debian.org
Subject: Please binNMU foo and bar against fixed libfrob
@@ -77,3 +78,32 @@
gb libfrob_2.1-4 . alpha
Thanks.
+
+--
+
+ To: debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org
+ Subject: Please retry libfrob reverse-dependencies
+
+ Hello,
+
+ libfrob (<= 2.1-3) could not be installed on some architectures due to
+ a bug now fixed, that made packages build-depending
+ in it fail on those architectures. Those can be retried now.
+
+ dw foo_4.3-3 bar_2:1.0-7 . alpha ia64 hppa . -m 'libfrob1 (>= 2.1-4)'
+
+ Thanks.
+
+--
+
+ To: kfreebsd-amd64@buildd.debian.org
+ Subject: Please retry libfrob reverse-dependencies
+
+ Hello,
+
+ libfrob (<= 2.1-3) could not be installed on kfreebsd-amd64 due to
+ a bug now fixed, which caused package foo to fail to build.
+
+ dw foo_4.3-3 . kfreebsd-amd64 . -m 'libfrob1 (>= 2.1-4)'
+
+ Thanks.
Reply to: