[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#555961: marked as done (release.debian.org: proposed clarifications for wanna-build.txt)

Your message dated Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:12:04 +0100
with message-id <87tytjkitn.fsf@solon.marcbrockschmidt.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#555961: release.debian.org: proposed clarifications for wanna-build.txt
has caused the Debian Bug report #555961,
regarding release.debian.org: proposed clarifications for wanna-build.txt
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
555961: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=555961
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 at 12:53:31 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Sorry, I don't really know how the internals of wanna-build work, or how the
> commands interact with them. After reading
> <http://release.debian.org/wanna-build.txt> and
> <http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states> it was reasonably
> clear to me that bluez needed a dep-wait on binutils, but it wasn't clear
> whether I'd also need to specify gb in order to prod w-b into doing something.

I've written some text for wanna-build.txt which attempts to describe what
a give-back or dep-wait does, to avoid others making the same mistake; I see
someone has already clarified with "If you are asking for a dep-wait, an
additional give-back is not needed", but explaining the commands' effects in
terms of the documented package states seems a good idea too.

I couldn't find wanna-build.txt in a VCS, so I started from today's version:

    http://git.debian.org/?p=users/smcv/release.d.o.git

Since http://release.debian.org/wanna-build.txt is referenced by the
Developers' Reference, it seems a good idea to keep it in sync with the 
policy announced in
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/09/msg00005.html> (asking
for binNMUs via a bug) and in
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/03/msg00096.html> (asking for
gb/dw via debian-wb-team), so I've attempted to do that. It's not clear to me
whether these policies are still current, so if they've changed, please let
me know and I'll amend the proposed wording.

Thanks,
    Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> writes:
> I've written some text for wanna-build.txt which attempts to describe what
> a give-back or dep-wait does, to avoid others making the same mistake; I see
> someone has already clarified with "If you are asking for a dep-wait, an
> additional give-back is not needed", but explaining the commands' effects in
> terms of the documented package states seems a good idea too.

Yes, thanks for your work!

> I couldn't find wanna-build.txt in a VCS, so I started from today's version:

It's in the subversion repository we use for release.d.o, which is only
available to the release team :-/

>     http://git.debian.org/?p=users/smcv/release.d.o.git

Your changes should now be visible. I've also added a few lines
explaining how BD-Uninstallable works.

Marc
-- 
BOFH #1:
clock speed

Attachment: pgpu8nUhDnNmV.pgp
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: