Wouter Verhelst dixit: >> What about those where I have patches >> in unreleased? > >Eh. If they're built and uploaded, they *should* show as "installed". If >they're not built yet, just take them for building, so no buildd tries >to build them.
Hum. These where my upload to unreleased is indeed newer than the last upload show up as installed, the others as needs-build. >> Looks like --no-build is for them? > >No, that means we don't ever want to build them, and isn't reset after a >new upload. But isn’t that precisely what I want? I want to mark a package as “do not autobuild it, even if a newer version is uploaded, until I tell you otherwise” (i.e. until I verified that the patches we require are part of it). >Please don't use that except for packages that are >architecture-specific to other architectures. Isn’t this sort of a similar situation? Take src:gcc-4.6 – if Doko uploads a new version of it right now, and a buildd takes it, it will build and upload and install successfully, but lead to problems. I think just taking it (in an older version) for building will not prevent that. I expect these cases to be rare, mostly only occur during a pre-release freeze, and become less and less over time, but fact is, we have them right now, and while (for example) qt4-x11 will just fail to build, others (gcc, eglibc) will build but lack required bugfixes, and marking them as no- build will prevent that better than me having an eye on debian-devel-changes *all the time* (especially when I’m sleeping, or offline) and claiming newer uploads… bye, //mirabilos -- I want one of these. They cost 720 € though… good they don’t have the HD hole, which indicates 3½″ floppies with double capacity… still. A tad too much, atm. ‣ http://www.floppytable.com/floppytable-images-1.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
