On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 07:11:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <w...@uter.be> writes: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 07:17:17PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> writes: > > >>> Thanks, yeah, I missed that. I'll have a stab at a patch some time soon > >>> (probably after debconf though) > > >> Here, a couple of years later, is a patch that does this, and which I > >> think is ready for seconds. > > > Whoops, sorry; this completely slipped my mind. > > Apologies, that probably sounded like I was complaining about you not > sending a patch. I only meant to mention that this was a thread from a > long time back, which is why it might seem out of the blue. I have > dropped so many Policy balls that I'm certainly not going to complain > about a bug slipping someone else's mind. :)
Oh no, trust me, it wasn't; but I still feel bad for having dropped the ball, as I always do :-) > > I think this could be expanded a bit? > > > "This is done to reduce the risk of inconsistencies between repeated > > builds, in case a package is temporarily not available to be installed > > on a given architecture (which due to the nature of the unstable > > distribution might happen for any number of reasons) at the time of the > > (re-)build of a package." > > > or something along those lines. The point is to make it clear how these > > inconsistencies are caused, which I think will help with understanding. > > > (I realize your text is what the footnote originally said, but I think > > this suggestion would improve matters) > > Here's an updated patch that expands that and also is more explicit, since > I found my own wording a bit hard to read. I also added an example. It > may be a bit verbose now, but this feels like an important topic to be > clear about given how often it comes up. > > I also reworded the paragraph about backports to hopefully address > Holger's reading. It's just trying to say that backports uses aptitude in > the normal way and doesn't do anything special to transform the > alternative. I think that text is miles better, yes. Seconded. -- w@uter.{be,co.za} wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org} I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature