On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 21:17, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:03:59PM -0700, Al Stone wrote: > > Hmmm. 'apt-get upgrade' this morning seems to have fixed it > > all -- so it would seem that the autobuilders got caught up. > > It would sure be nice to fix the underlying problem, though -- > > perhaps, as I think someone already suggested, by having a gate > > in the process so that the archives are not updated until all > > of the binary packages from a single source package have rebuilt. > > No, that is the wrong fix, the right fix is simply to keep all the arch:all > packages that have assorted arch:any packages in the archive.
Uh, that would be called "testing". Or are you suggesting that we implement a new fourth distribution between testing and unstable, which requires that all arches are built, but does not require the 2-10 day testing period? Sounds kinda over-the-top to me. -Adam P. GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg
