On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:38:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:22:01AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > If you already rebuilt everything externally why then ask for the NMU? > > The importance here is not the NMU fact, it is the fact that you trigger a > > auto-binNMU on the buildds. So you don't have to manually upload all of > > those > > packages, just give the list of packages as hint to the buildd network. You > > have then naturally to do sourcefull uploads all those packages which needs > > bugfixes, but this is a different issue. > > > > The idea is that this leaves the drudge work of rebuilding everything that > > is > > fine to the buildds, and allow you to concentrate on what really needs done. > > So you propose to start with the binNMU and then follow them with the > sourceful upload? This is fine with me, but the sourceful upload is a > showstopper for me: all packages involved in the transition which had a > binNMU but not the corresponding sourceful upload should be RC-bugged.
Why ? I mean, if it worked well, why would you want to reupload it ? Just so you dump the >= 3.09.0 dep ? > BTW, with the new .in mechanism I was able to make the transition for > the whole bunch of my packages in one hour or so. Indeed, but the problem is mostly with the less 'maintained' ones, which it is possible to miss or forget. > > -- > Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy > [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ > If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity > of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
