Bug#1112337: nmu: varnish-modules_0.26.0-2

To: Marco d'Itri <md@linux.it>, 1112337@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#1112337: nmu: varnish-modules_0.26.0-2
From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:11:14 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] bcd3ac4f-8d55-47e3-9712-b9301a6e124d@debian.org>
Reply-to: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>, 1112337@bugs.debian.org
In-reply-to: <aLB2Z7lLZYZMZMB8@bongo.bofh.it>
References: <aLB2Z7lLZYZMZMB8@bongo.bofh.it> <aLB2Z7lLZYZMZMB8@bongo.bofh.it>

On 28/08/2025 17:31, Marco d'Itri wrote:

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: varnish-modules@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:varnish-modules
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu

nmu varnish-modules_0.26.0-2 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild for the new varnish ABI."

I should have updated the ABI tag for my latest varnish upload even if
the ABI is actually compatible, because the version number changed too,
but I did not. Hence the need to binNMU varnish-modules.

I'm not sure I follow. You say the ABI is compatible, so why is the binNMUneeded? Why is the version number relevant?


Cheers,
Emilio

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Bug#1112337: nmu: varnish-modules_0.26.0-2
  - From: Marco d'Itri <md@linux.it>

Prev by Date: Bug#1110866: marked as done (transition: gdal)
Next by Date: Bug#1114533: marked as done (nmu: fntsample_5.4-3)
Previous by thread: Bug#1110866: marked as done (transition: gdal)
Next by thread: Bug#1112337: nmu: varnish-modules_0.26.0-2
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread