Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> (2019-08-25):
> Niels Thykier writes ("Re: vacation 3.3.2 MIGRATED to testing"):
> > There was a binNMU of vacation/3.3.2 yesterday[1]. I have not looked
> > into the precise timing but I assume that is the reason why 3.3.2 migrated.
> ...
> > [1]
> > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=vacation&ver=3.3.2%2Bb1&arch=amd64&suite=sid
>
> Ah. Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Forgive my ignorance (and adding the WB team), but:
>
> Do you happen to know what the most sensible way is for me to check
> for a binNMU in future ? Starting from tracker and its links to
> buildd logs, I can't seem to find any trace of 3.3.2+b1. It's not on
> p.d.o either (https://packages.debian.org/unstable/vacation).
Always a good idea to check what your source and binaries look like?
kibi@armor:~$ rmadison -S vacation -s testing
vacation | 3.3.2 | testing | source, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
vacation | 3.3.2+b1 | testing | amd64
> And I didn't get any email about this binNMU despite being listed in
> Uploaders.
There are no binNMU notifications that I'm aware of.
> And, DYK if there is a way for me to know who scheduled this binNMU
> and why ? From your link I found a log which contains this
> information:
>
> Binary-Only-Changes:
> vacation (3.3.2+b1) sid; urgency=low, binary-only=yes
> .
> * Binary-only non-maintainer upload for amd64; no source changes.
> * rebuild on buildd
> .
> -- amd64 Build Daemon (x86-grnet-01) <buildd_amd64-x86-grnet-01@buildd.debian.org> Sat, 24 Aug 2019 04:47:34 +0000
The why is in the changelog you quoted… The who, probably somewhere in
the wanna-build DB, but that's not my forte.
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature