On തി, Jan 13, 2020 at 09:13, Paolo Greppi <paolo.gre...@libpf.com>
wrote:
Il 13/01/20 07:10, Pirate Praveen ha scritto:
...
Nopes. FTBFS is rc and people do periodic archive wide rebuilds and
this can get packages removed from testing. I prefer we fix at least
important packages before pushing gulp 4 to unstable.
gulp package is not an end in itself, but the whole reason gulp was
packaged was to build these packages as its unlikely any end user
will want to use packaged gulp.
For packages that is likely to be used directly by users, your
approach is OK.
Thanks Pravi, I agree.
What is the best oneliner to test a package targeting unstable with a
mix of selected packages from experimental ?
Preferably using https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/meta ...
And what about telling salsa CI to do so for us ?
meta script mentioned above now takes packages from experimental if
build depends is satisfied only with versions from experimental. So
with a properly specified build depends, just calling build script is
enough for rebuilding reverse build dependencies (though that does not
yet work for autopkgtest, I want to do that some time soon, if someone
wants to try that before me that would be good too).
--
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
