Commonly, I update a package that provides a shared library. Due to the package naming convention, a new SOVERSION necessitates a trip through NEW, which in turn means a binary upload.
The binary upload cannot transition to testing -- a buildd binary build is required. So far as I know -- assuming [1] is still up-to-date, this means a nuisance upload just bumping the debian revision from -1 to -2. Is this still the recommended practice? I've also been wondering about the "Give Back" action button on the buildd log page. It doesn't work in this case because "Package in state Installed, cannot give back. ✗". Wondering if the logic can be modified to also check whether the build was done on a buildd -- e.g. check whether the logs column contains "no log". If it wasn't a buildd build, can the giveback be allowed? Thanks, -Steve [1] https://wiki.debian.org/SourceOnlyUpload
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
