Re: BinNMU breaks QT4
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:48:24 +0200, ancow wrote: Multiarch being a release goal, I'd consider this issue release critical, but maybe that's just me... Release goal very much implies not release critical. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BinNMU breaks QT4
Lisandro, am Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:07:34PM -0300 hast du folgendes geschrieben: On the other hand, IMPOV, if it's RC, the real bug it's on the buildds/dpkg, and it should be RC too. the buildds really don't have anything to do with it. Maybe the infrastructure should prevent people from doing binNMUs, but given that the non-multiarch use was fixed by them it wouldn't be that great. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BinNMU breaks QT4
On Mié 15 Aug 2012 08:52:55 Philipp Kern escribió: Lisandro, am Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 09:07:34PM -0300 hast du folgendes geschrieben: On the other hand, IMPOV, if it's RC, the real bug it's on the buildds/dpkg, and it should be RC too. the buildds really don't have anything to do with it. Maybe the infrastructure should prevent people from doing binNMUs, but given that the non-multiarch use was fixed by them it wouldn't be that great. Thanks Philipp for the data :-) -- http://mx.grulic.org.ar/lurker/message/20081108.174208.4f42e55c.es.html Así se corrobora el software legal en Argentina Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: BinNMU breaks QT4
On Mar 14 Aug 2012 20:48:24 ancow escribió: [snip] Multiarch being a release goal, I'd consider this issue release critical, but maybe that's just me... This is the part I don't really know. If it's considered RC, then things change, but so far no one confirmed nor denied me this. On the other hand, IMPOV, if it's RC, the real bug it's on the buildds/dpkg, and it should be RC too. Kinds regards, Lisandro. -- Geek Inside! Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: BinNMU breaks QT4
Am Mittwoch 15.08.2012, 01:24:48 schrieb Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer: We (as in pkg-kde team) have decided to avoid reuploading Qt for some more time in case some other bug appears. On the other hand, I really don't know if this kind of upload would be acceptable by the RT for unblock. Seeing as how the buggy Qt version has made it into wheezy now, do you think you could reconsider that stance? Or do you consider multiarch issues too unimportant to rectify this? Multiarch being a release goal, I'd consider this issue release critical, but maybe that's just me... --Reinhold -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qt-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201208150148.24998.b...@ancow.no-ip.org
Re: BinNMU breaks QT4
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 22:43 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: I update my system (Sid) just mow, and got some errors due to BinNUM of QT. and have you discussed this with the maintainers, who requested the binNMU? (CCed) I aware of the technical debate on multiarch and binnum, it seems that all guys there have their sufficient arguments. It's great technical debate, WHILE: The problem is there unsloved, and USERs are using my system, and We know exactly that the binnum of some packages will broken system certainly. There's no need to shout. It really doesn't help your point. If you're running a multi-user system and basing it on sid, you really have to expect some breakage, multi-arch or not. Why we still BinNMU these packages before this problem completely resolved? Must we? Well it avoids tying up several hours of buildd time on architectures not affected by the issue the binNMU was scheduled for (i.e. 9/14). Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qt-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1344698302.2978.48.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: BinNMU breaks QT4
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 22:43 +0800, YunQiang Su wrote: I update my system (Sid) just mow, and got some errors due to BinNUM of QT. and have you discussed this with the maintainers, who requested the binNMU? (CCed) I aware of the technical debate on multiarch and binnum, it seems that all guys there have their sufficient arguments. It's great technical debate, WHILE: The problem is there unsloved, and USERs are using my system, and We know exactly that the binnum of some packages will broken system certainly. There's no need to shout. It really doesn't help your point. If you're running a multi-user system and basing it on sid, you really have to expect some breakage, multi-arch or not. Why we still BinNMU these packages before this problem completely resolved? Must we? Well it avoids tying up several hours of buildd time on architectures not affected by the issue the binNMU was scheduled for (i.e. 9/14). I install both i386 and amd64, when I upgrade, both of them are built ok. etc, I upgrade i386 and amd64 at the same time. Regards, Adam -- YunQiang Su -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qt-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cakcpw6v9rxq25ul6u5qsf3tipsasq+5yrf0t0bcuxembvwo...@mail.gmail.com
