On 12/6/20 12:27 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 06.12.20 01:08, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:21 PM Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe there is more. But there's no progress, or intent to fix every tool
>>> to be
>>> aware of binNMUs. Maybe it's better to rethink how sourceful
On 06.12.20 01:08, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:21 PM Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> Maybe there is more. But there's no progress, or intent to fix every tool to
>> be
>> aware of binNMUs. Maybe it's better to rethink how sourceful no-change
>> no-maintainer uploads could be done
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:21 PM Matthias Klose wrote:
> Maybe there is more. But there's no progress, or intent to fix every tool to
> be
> aware of binNMUs. Maybe it's better to rethink how sourceful no-change
> no-maintainer uploads could be done without introducing the above issues?
`dch
On 12/1/20 11:56 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 at 11:05:54 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Can someone remind me: Why is it that we cannot do arch-independent
>> auto-building?
>
> We can and do autobuild arch-independent packages (since 2015: on the
> timescale of
On Wed, 02 Dec 2020 at 11:15:44 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> But this has the obvious downside that "${source:Version}" is unchanged
> and that you might have issues with dependencies against the arch: all
> package.
Yes, I already said that this is why OBS can't realistically do its builds
On Wed, 02 Dec 2020, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > potentially different content, breaking the important design principle
> > that things that are different should have different names.
[...]
> And as an aside, the archive has big holes when enforcing this "design
> principle":
>
Hi,
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020, Simon McVittie wrote:
> If I understand correctly, one of the ftp team's objections to discarding
> and rebuilding maintainer-uploaded binaries is that if I upload foo_1.2-3,
> and they discard my binary upload and rebuild it on the buildds, this
> would result in having
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 12:28:38PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 10:56:28AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > Possible solutions:
> >
> > - Change at least 622 packages so they have something more like
> > Depends: foo-data (>= ${source:Version}), foo-data (<<
> >
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:36 AM Julien Cristau wrote:
> Make no-change-other-than-version-bump source uploads easier?
`dch --rebuild` already exists, so this would just need support in
wanna-build/sbuild for generating such uploads and support in dak for
accepting sourceful uploads from
Le 01/12/2020 à 12:19, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Quoting Simon McVittie (2020-12-01 11:56:28)
>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 at 11:05:54 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> Can someone remind me: Why is it that we cannot do arch-independent
>>> auto-building?
>>
>> We can and do autobuild
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 10:56:28AM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Possible solutions:
>
> - Change at least 622 packages so they have something more like
> Depends: foo-data (>= ${source:Version}), foo-data (<< ${source:Version}+c)
> (also hope that all of their maintainers can get those
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 at 10:56:28 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> We can and do autobuild arch-independent packages (since 2015: on the
> timescale of multi-release transitions, this is relatively recent).
>
> However, we cannot currently do arch-independent *binNMUs* [because...]
I've thought in
Quoting Simon McVittie (2020-12-01 11:56:28)
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 at 11:05:54 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Can someone remind me: Why is it that we cannot do arch-independent
> > auto-building?
>
> We can and do autobuild arch-independent packages (since 2015: on the
> timescale of
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 at 11:05:54 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Can someone remind me: Why is it that we cannot do arch-independent
> auto-building?
We can and do autobuild arch-independent packages (since 2015: on the
timescale of multi-release transitions, this is relatively recent).
14 matches
Mail list logo
