On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:09:20AM -0500, sean finney wrote: > > > followed by a
> > > bug#465656 fixed, we made the binNMUed > > > two hours later. > > And I'm not interested in having to close such bugs. :) > right, that's kind of superfluous and overkill. however, i still think > it would be nice if at the end of a binNMU upload something fired off > an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying "your package has just been > binNMU'd by debian-release, fyi" (providing more info would be even > better). I'm not sure if that would be better addressed in the archive > scripts or in whatever triggered the binNMU in the first place. in my > situation there was no notification, no changelog entry, nothing in the > packages.qa.d.o page, etc. Sure, I agree that it would be nice if such notification happened; but I don't think its absence is so much of an issue that it outweighs the benefits of doing binNMUs under the present circumstances -- and I'm afraid I also don't have time right now to ensure such notifications are happening. > > In the general case one cannot know, a priori, that a given version of a > > package will be compatible with future Debian revisions of a related > > package. I don't think maintainers that are concerned about such > > incompatibilities should be asked to change their package dependencies just > > to support binNMUs. The right solution here *is* to enhance dpkg-dev so > > that it knows the difference between source and binary versions. > agreed, and that's not something i want to have to support. i think i saw > this discussed on d-d a few months back but don't recall anything coming > of it. Patches exist; I don't know why they haven't yet been integrated into dpkg. Perhaps the dpkg mailing list holds more clues. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
