On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:29:46AM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > Yes, but that would push complexity to the client side for no > > particularly good reason. > > The “client” here is dak, and the info could be pushed to UDD, > if it isn’t already (didn’t check). That’s a one-off thing.
You don't appreciate the beauty of simplicity. The whole binNMU thing is already a hack. Creating a new source package, building it, and then *throwing* the source? That's *weird*. Do we really want to increase the size of the hack? As explained by Niels, the main reason we do binNMUs is that they are a lot easier to do than sourceful-nmus-only-made-to-trigger-a-rebuild. But once we are able to trigger a rebuild with sourceful NMUs, as Ubuntu does, binNMUs will hopefully be a thing of the past. Thanks.