Re: binNMUs: please exercise some care
On 23/10/15 11:20, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> I can go back to scheduling binNMUs for release architectures only, or for ANY
>> -x32. But I don't have the time to look at every architecture and determine
>> which one needs a binNMU and which one has already done it. Anyway if your
> OK. In this case, scheduling them is probably better.
OK good to know.
>> buildds are fast enough that they already rebuilt things, then maybe rebuilding
>> them again is not such a big deal...
> This is probably true for x32, yes, but I was concerned about
> M-A libraries not being coinstallable. For example, the harfbuzz
> library currently has one +b more than all others, making trouble
> for my desktop system (x32+i386 M-A). In that case, it wasn’t even
> because the rebuild was done twice, but, because another rebuild
> before the current (shared) one was necessary.
> How about, scheduling them all at once, but using the same version
> number across arches when doing it (i.e. the largest)?
Again, that involves determining what that number is for each package...
Instead of all that manual work for every transition, you could ping #758616 and
try to get this solved at its root.
>> That wasn't me. But I'll try to spread the word about --extra-depends, as I
>> agree it's useful to avoid this. I didn't use it much in the past when I just
> Okay, thanks a lot! Also, thanks for the response.