On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:08:03AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:23:42AM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:11 AM Roberto C. Sánchez <robe...@debian.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > The link indicates that it originated from #863956. However, in > > > discussion with Sylvain (who authored the page) he indicated that for > > > LTS this is not always a good approach, as Built-Using was much less > > > reliably available in buster. Are you aware of the situation being > > > different for buster? > > > > > > > Individual package maintainers may always have mistakes in their > > packages, by not properly following Go packaging guide. I don't think > > this is specific to buster or not. > > > I understand that there are several factors which contribute to the > accuracy of being able to identify reverse dependencies in the first > place. However, those are things that I cannot control. > > What would be the most helpful to me to is to know: > > - is the list of 101 packages the "best" list I can get (given the > limitations you pointed out)? > - do all 101 of those packages need to be rebuilt? > I will proceed with the rebuilds and then consider how LTS should be handling Go-related updates in the future.
Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
