On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 01:51:46 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 02:53:19PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > (I'd currently tend to accept it, however I'm not yet sure of all the > > > consequences of this change.) > > This change in itself should not have any consequence as it should not > > affect the normal build if the value is not being used, or maybe you > > are referring to *when* the value is being used? > > I don't want to special-case a single suite in buildd/sbuild to not put > binary-only=something in there. And yes, those are only warnings, I know, > but it would be annoying to have the build logs polluted with them.
I can understand not wanting to special-case this in buildd/sbuild, but I don't really see the point in using this at least until wheezy is released at which point squeeze will be oldstable, and then how many binNMUs are usually performed for such a suite? (And polluting seems to me a bit too much for at most few possible warning lines, when lots of packages produce tons of compiler warnings for example.) > (And it's one reason why we always expect stable to support the features we > use > in the archive.) Well, just quiescing the warning on unknown changelog binary-only keyword is not really supporting the feature. And I think doing that would be a bad idea, because it might give the wrong impression such feature is supported there, when it's not. At the same time I don't think this feature should be backported either. thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120730085102.ga28...@gaara.hadrons.org
