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