On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > >> Ah, cool – so we have only to patch this tool to automatically > >> use the highest number per batch on all affected architectures > >> (or even to use the highest number if all architectures would > >> be touched, but that’s probably an unreasonable amount of code > >> change). > > > > Sorry, aren't you saying the same thing in both cases? If not, can you > > rephrase > > or expand that?
> This won't help when we have to schedule a binNMU on one or two architectures > and not all of them. That’s why I made the distinction. The change to the tool can be done by taking the highest version number across the _listed_ or _all_ architectures. (The listed ones is probably better.) On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Well, except you only really want to do it for libraries that are ma:same, as > that's the only case where it actually matters and otherwise you're > pointlessly losing versions. Right, but it’s not as if losing versions would have any bad impact. > It's also not quite that simple, even working things out by hand - see #599128 > for example. Hm, I’m still under the impression that the +bN suffix to the Debian version of the package in the archive is the authoritative source for what binNMU version a package currently has, as that’s taking porter uploads into account which is a requirement. If the current code doesn’t do that I consider it a bug which must be fixed (at the same time, or before doing this change), which makes it more tricky, yes. bye, //mirabilos -- tarent solutions GmbH Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/ Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235 HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg