On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:44:20 +0100, Wookey wrote: > +++ Julien Cristau [2015-10-09 08:37 +0200]: > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 16:25:00 +0100, Wookey wrote: > > > > > +++ Philipp Huebner [2015-10-07 13:13 +0200]: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > there was a bug in rebar that caused several erlang-p1-* packages to > > > > FTBFS on certain architectures. Once that was fixed, the packages where > > > > automatically and successfully built again, but for some unknown reason > > > > the resulting binary packages for arm64 never appeared in the archive. > > > > > > Yes something very odd has happenned here. > > > > > As far as I can tell the packages were removed a month ago, so > > give-backs were the wrong thing to do: bugs#796565, 796566, 796567, > > 796568, 796569, 796646. > > OK, but the underlying rebar bug is now fixed so having them back in > the archive is correct. Give-backs seems to have achieved this. > > So what should/could have been done instead? > A binNMU would have been better, since that would have avoided reusing the same version number for a new build. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature