On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 07:11:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[email protected]> writes: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 07:17:17PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Wouter Verhelst <[email protected]> writes: > > >>> Thanks, yeah, I missed that. I'll have a stab at a patch some time soon > >>> (probably after debconf though) > > >> Here, a couple of years later, is a patch that does this, and which I > >> think is ready for seconds. > > > Whoops, sorry; this completely slipped my mind. > > Apologies, that probably sounded like I was complaining about you not > sending a patch. I only meant to mention that this was a thread from a > long time back, which is why it might seem out of the blue. I have > dropped so many Policy balls that I'm certainly not going to complain > about a bug slipping someone else's mind. :)
Oh no, trust me, it wasn't; but I still feel bad for having dropped the
ball, as I always do :-)
> > I think this could be expanded a bit?
>
> > "This is done to reduce the risk of inconsistencies between repeated
> > builds, in case a package is temporarily not available to be installed
> > on a given architecture (which due to the nature of the unstable
> > distribution might happen for any number of reasons) at the time of the
> > (re-)build of a package."
>
> > or something along those lines. The point is to make it clear how these
> > inconsistencies are caused, which I think will help with understanding.
>
> > (I realize your text is what the footnote originally said, but I think
> > this suggestion would improve matters)
>
> Here's an updated patch that expands that and also is more explicit, since
> I found my own wording a bit hard to read. I also added an example. It
> may be a bit verbose now, but this feels like an important topic to be
> clear about given how often it comes up.
>
> I also reworded the paragraph about backports to hopefully address
> Holger's reading. It's just trying to say that backports uses aptitude in
> the normal way and doesn't do anything special to transform the
> alternative.
I think that text is miles better, yes. Seconded.
--
w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}
I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
