Re: Question on why package was rebuilt
Hi On 2024-02-16 21:32:49 +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote: > When a package is uploaded to NEW, you have to upload both the source > > and binary package(s) for review. After the package is accepted, the > > buildds auto-build for any other architectures that don't already have > > a binary package. Migration policy requires all packages to be built on > > official buildds from their source package[1]. Since the amd64 binary > > package already existed from the upload to NEW, it wouldn't be auto- > > built and would block migration of your package to testing. > > > > This isn't what happened, I suppose, since we all debian maintainers need > to do source-only uploads after a package has been accepted through the NEW > process. > Unless I'm mistaken, that source-only upload cannot be replaced by a > binNMU, can it ? > What happened is more likely to be a standard rebuild against a new version > of a dependent library. A binNMU is enough if the source package only builds architecture dependent packages. If Architecture: all packages are involved, a source only upload is required. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Re: Question on why package was rebuilt
Le ven. 16 févr. 2024 à 04:03, Mathias Gibbens a écrit : > On Thu, 2024-02-15 at 16:20 -0800, Loren M. Lang wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I recently had a package sponsors and entered into unstable called tiv. > > It can be seen here: > > > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/tiv > > > > Everything went OK, but I see that the amd64 arch package appears to > > have been re-built for some reason. It's version is showing up with a > > +b1. I am curious if there is some long to indicate what the issue might > > have been that led to a rebuild. Could there have been a compilation > > issue or other things I should be concerned about or is it likely > > something harmless? Is there a log for this case? > > There's no cause for concern -- it's a normal part of a new package > entering the archive. > Indeed... When a package is uploaded to NEW, you have to upload both the source > and binary package(s) for review. After the package is accepted, the > buildds auto-build for any other architectures that don't already have > a binary package. Migration policy requires all packages to be built on > official buildds from their source package[1]. Since the amd64 binary > package already existed from the upload to NEW, it wouldn't be auto- > built and would block migration of your package to testing. > This isn't what happened, I suppose, since we all debian maintainers need to do source-only uploads after a package has been accepted through the NEW process. Unless I'm mistaken, that source-only upload cannot be replaced by a binNMU, can it ? What happened is more likely to be a standard rebuild against a new version of a dependent library. The "+b1" indicates a binBMU was performed[2,3]. If you look at the > buildd logs (https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=tiv), > you'll see the relevant changelog entry for the amd64 package: "Rebuild > on buildd". > A binNMU, but right. > > Mathias > > [1] -- > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#source-and-binary-uploads > [2] -- > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#source-nmus-vs-binary-only-nmus-binnmus > [3] -- > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#recompilation-or-binary-only-nmu >
Re: Question on why package was rebuilt
On Thu, 2024-02-15 at 16:20 -0800, Loren M. Lang wrote: > Hello, > > I recently had a package sponsors and entered into unstable called tiv. > It can be seen here: > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/tiv > > Everything went OK, but I see that the amd64 arch package appears to > have been re-built for some reason. It's version is showing up with a > +b1. I am curious if there is some long to indicate what the issue might > have been that led to a rebuild. Could there have been a compilation > issue or other things I should be concerned about or is it likely > something harmless? Is there a log for this case? There's no cause for concern -- it's a normal part of a new package entering the archive. When a package is uploaded to NEW, you have to upload both the source and binary package(s) for review. After the package is accepted, the buildds auto-build for any other architectures that don't already have a binary package. Migration policy requires all packages to be built on official buildds from their source package[1]. Since the amd64 binary package already existed from the upload to NEW, it wouldn't be auto- built and would block migration of your package to testing. The "+b1" indicates a binBMU was performed[2,3]. If you look at the buildd logs (https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=tiv), you'll see the relevant changelog entry for the amd64 package: "Rebuild on buildd". Mathias [1] -- https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#source-and-binary-uploads [2] -- https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#source-nmus-vs-binary-only-nmus-binnmus [3] -- https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#recompilation-or-binary-only-nmu signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Question on why package was rebuilt
Hello, I recently had a package sponsors and entered into unstable called tiv. It can be seen here: https://packages.debian.org/sid/tiv Everything went OK, but I see that the amd64 arch package appears to have been re-built for some reason. It's version is showing up with a +b1. I am curious if there is some long to indicate what the issue might have been that led to a rebuild. Could there have been a compilation issue or other things I should be concerned about or is it likely something harmless? Is there a log for this case? -- Loren M. Lang lor...@north-winds.org http://www.north-winds.org/ Public Key: http://www.north-winds.org/lorenl_pubkey.asc Fingerprint: 7896 E099 9FC7 9F6C E0ED E103 222D F356 A57A 98FA signature.asc Description: PGP signature
