On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:25:42 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > >> Wouldn't the ideal solution be non-architecture-specific changelogs? > > No, that would be very much non-ideal. One should be able to schedule > binNMUs for a subset of archs,
I did not suggest that. Anyway, maybe this will be a bit clearer. Let's say an existing package is at version +b1 on amd64, and it needs to get a binnmu, then a +b2 package is built on amd64, its changelog is taken and stuffed it into all of the other 'Multi-Arch: same' +b1 packages, which are now called +b2, and all of them uploaded. Those other architectures didn't undergo a rebuild, but nevertheless, they got new packages. Then lets say a +b3 is needed on i386, then the same is done, and the 'Multi-arch: same' amd64 package (and others) get stuffed with the i386 +b3 changes (which includes the prior amd64 +b2 changelog). > and one shouldn't have to look up whether > a package builds m-a:same binaries. This is a new special case that will need to be handled somehow, right? Look-ups are not that expensive; although admittedly the time spent writing the infrastructure supporting may not be. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
