On Wed, 08 Feb 2012, Neil Williams wrote:
> I don't get it. That would only affect packages which were built
> during the time that a new upload of gzip is made and all the
> buildd's making that new version available. Now, if there is a
> binNMU after a new version of gzip is uploaded, yes it is probably
> wise to rebuild all architectures if the package includes a
> Multi-Arch: same library. How often does that happen?
Isn't this something that we can test for in the archive, and require
rebuilds for all affected packages before entering testing?
[Multi-Arch: same with the same path that have differing md5sums?]
Even outside of the gzip case, this would catch cases where
maintainers had screwed up.
Don Armstrong
--
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion [...] refutes its
thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's
labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight
has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by
sitting on it---and is just as likely to succeed.
-- Alex Kozinski, Dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer
(CV-00-00411-WBS p5983-4)
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120208192528.gd6...@rzlab.ucr.edu
