On Tue, 07 Jun 2011, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Don Armstrong (d...@debian.org) [110607 04:25]: > > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011, Philipp Kern wrote: > > > I.e. I think we should still allow non-buildd binaries, e.g. for > > > those cases you mentioned. > > > > Non-buildd binaries should still be allowed, but they should be > > followed immediately by a binNMU. [Are there any cases where we > > wouldn't want to rebuild the package after it was bootstrapped?] > > There are cases where porters need to upload, because of "funny" > issues. Or hand-builds within sane buildd chroots where the buildd > software refuses. Or similar. (I think I did less than 10 such > uploads recently.)
Ok. Am I correct that these odd cases are bugs which should be fixed? If so, it seems reasonable to queue a binNMU, and then file bugs appropriately if it failed. Don Armstrong -- [T]he question of whether Machines Can Think, [...] is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra "The threats to computing science" http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110607155947.gv4...@rzlab.ucr.edu