Hi, On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Can I ask you the converse question: what same-timestamp proposal do > > you think is best and why ? > > I found Guillem's suggestion the most sensible and as far as I understand the > matter also the easiest to implement: > > Quoting Guillem Jover (2016-11-09 00:18:25) > > So the actual problem is that the last timestamp gets reused for the > > binNMUs, which seems totally bogus to me. This needs to be fixed in > > whatever is injecting the binNMU entries on the buildds. > > but that proposal did not get any attention so I somehow assumed that there's > probably a reason not to do so
I don't think so. Given the discussions we had, I agree that it would be best if the bin-nmu timestamp could be set by wanna-build itself, at the time the binnmus are requested. That would give a consistent (and real) timestamp across all arches being rebuilt together. > and thus I suggested an alternative: choose the > new timestamp by using the binNMU number and add that many number of seconds. > A > +b17 binNMU would add 17 seconds to the original changelog timestamp. Thus, no > archive lookups would be required. This is assuming that the bin-nmu versioning space is linear. It no longer is because the bin-nmu is no longer defined by the "+bX" added to the version but by the "binary-only=yes" changelog attribute. In fact, I expect that we will want bin-nmu within PPA and that we will have bin-nmu versions like <version>+ppafoo1 in one repo and <version>+ppabar1 in another repository. (Ubuntu could also benefit from this when it rebuilds a single source package for multiple release in a PPA.) That's something that you could already implement in sbuild BTW. It currently does not allow to pass such a binNMU version while dpkg allows it. :-) Maybe it can be smart and if the parameter to --binNMU-version contains (or starts with?) non-digits, then it should assume that it's the full bin-NMU suffix that is passed. > But maybe to talk about this option: what would speak against changing the > "nmu" command of wanna-build to also add an option that allows setting a > timestamp, or even let wanna-build generate that timestamp itself (from the > time it processes the "nmu" command) and then pass it to sbuild via a > not-yet-existing --binNMU-timestamp option? > > With that solution we would not have to change anything other than wanna-build > and sbuild. And I would take care of the latter. +1 from me on this solution. I don't see anything significant drawback. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/