Philipp Kern dixit:
>> Maybe wb could do a “dak ls” and whatever the equivalent for dpo mini-dak is.
>
>Unfortunately it is not being run on the same host as dak either.
Hm, rmadison then. What does packages.d.o/sid/binpkgname use? (On the
other hand, that’s often quite behind…)
bye,
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 02:46:23PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > and testing), so the only way to be certain what binNMU number to use is to
> > check manually. In practice what actually happens is that people forget
> > about
> Maybe wb could do
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> I didn't say once per arch. I said once per package, which is worse. I
> normally
> schedule binNMUs for several dozens packages. Multiply that by several
But you need to look the number up anyway? The wanna-build
--binNMU parameter gets the
On 23/10/15 13:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 23/10/15 13:02, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>
>>> wanna-build does, yes, but at least the Release Team tend to use the "wb"
>>> wrapper tool which automatically works out the next free number on each
On 23/10/15 13:02, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>
>> wanna-build does, yes, but at least the Release Team tend to use the "wb"
>> wrapper tool which automatically works out the next free number on each
>> architecture.
>
> Ah, cool – so we have only to
On 23/10/15 11:20, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>
>> I can go back to scheduling binNMUs for release architectures only, or for
>> ANY
>> -x32. But I don't have the time to look at every architecture and determine
>> which one needs a binNMU and
On 2015-10-23 11:56, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
I didn't say once per arch. I said once per package, which is worse. I
normally
schedule binNMUs for several dozens packages. Multiply that by several
But you need to look the number up anyway?
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> wanna-build does, yes, but at least the Release Team tend to use the "wb"
> wrapper tool which automatically works out the next free number on each
> architecture.
Ah, cool – so we have only to patch this tool to automatically
use the highest number
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> and testing), so the only way to be certain what binNMU number to use is to
> check manually. In practice what actually happens is that people forget about
Maybe wb could do a “dak ls” and whatever the equivalent for dpo mini-dak is.
I’ll have a
On 2015-10-23 13:28, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
[...]
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
It's also not quite that simple, even working things out by hand - see
#599128
for example.
Hm, I’m still under the impression that the +bN suffix to the Debian
version of the package in the
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> I can go back to scheduling binNMUs for release architectures only, or for ANY
> -x32. But I don't have the time to look at every architecture and determine
> which one needs a binNMU and which one has already done it. Anyway if your
OK. In
On 23/10/15 12:23, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [2015-10-23 11:49 +0200]:
>> On 23/10/15 11:20, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
>>> How about, scheduling them all at once, but using the same version
>>> number across arches when doing it (i.e. the largest)?
>>
>> Again, that involves
On 2015-10-23 12:02, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
wanna-build does, yes, but at least the Release Team tend to use the
"wb"
wrapper tool which automatically works out the next free number on
each
architecture.
Ah, cool – so we have only to patch this
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >> Ah, cool – so we have only to patch this tool to automatically
> >> use the highest number per batch on all affected architectures
> >> (or even to use the highest number if all architectures would
> >> be touched, but that’s probably an
[ Sorry for the cross-post, but I believe the people in -release and -wb-team
should see this ]
On 23/10/15 09:05, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> whoever is scheduling binNMUs now should do so with a little
> bit more care, please.
>
> Case in point, frameworkintegration – x32 already was
+++ Emilio Pozuelo Monfort [2015-10-23 11:49 +0200]:
> On 23/10/15 11:20, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > How about, scheduling them all at once, but using the same version
> > number across arches when doing it (i.e. the largest)?
>
> Again, that involves determining what that number is for each
16 matches
Mail list logo
