Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> (2019-03-04): > And Mark says: > > "we don't want to go rewinding version numbers in unstable; that could > lead to all sorts of unforeseeable breakage. > > much as we'd expected. Any more feedback please? Cyril prefers > approach #2 below, I prefer #3. To clarify: #2 was my preferred approach when we first tried to get #3 to work, seeing how many things could need tweaking; #2 is mostly about re-uploading packages that we know were working (albeit with different version numbers), which looked more reassuring. Given the amount of research we've done since then, it seems that we've ironed out what could be an issue (mostly the fact we moved files from one binary package to another one), and we didn't spot other packages having relationships to either binary packages, that could have an issue with the new layout. Building a binary package for real, even if in a chroot with some specific versions also looks cleaner to me than repacking and re-uploading old binaries. Long story short: #3 looks good to me. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature