On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 11:16:40PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:32:38AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > >...
> > > > Binary NMU for unstable:
> > > > Version: 1.0-2.0.1
> > > >
> > > > Your suggested pre-tesing package:
> > > > Version: 1.0-2.0.1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > IOW:
> > > > There are two different packages with the same version number.
> > >
> > > But:
> > >
> > > - if they come into incoming the same day, the 1st one wins
> >
> > There are two packages with the same version number.
>
> Not in the archive, since only one of them will be able to reach
> incoming, let alone one of stable/testing/pre-testing/unstable - or do
> I miss something ?
>...
E.g. a binary NMU might cause your suggested pre-tesing package to be
rejected.
Independent of your suggestions:
It's never a good idea to use a version number namespace that is already
occupied for something different.
> > There's often no arch-specific RC bugreport for problems that are fixed
> > by binary NMUs.
>
> I'm precisely suggesting there should be. Maybe we miss a feature in
> debbugs, to avoid mass-filing, where a given bug may relate to a
> number of packages, and needs to be "fixed on behalf of" all those
> packages to be really closed - that would avoid useless the
> tons-of-rc-bugs one may fear when reading this suggestion :)
No matter how bug reports are filed, bug reports that are closed a few
minutes later by a binary NMU would have exactly zero effect on testing
or anything else.
> Regards,
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
