Ah I see now, you were just pointing it out, ok. I'm about (like its happening in another window) to upload 5.6 but if you're sure the two versions won't come unstuck then go ahead with a 5.5.3 upload.
- Craig On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 22:21, peter green <plugw...@p10link.net> wrote: > On 17/12/2020 10:29, Craig Small wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > I would, but the problem is the system is terrible. > > No disagreement there. Having to do an upload with binaries, then wait for > the > ftpmasters to get around to approving it, then come back and make a source > -only upload is a PITA. I didn't make the rules and would seriously > consider > supporting a GR to fix them. > > Still the version of wordpress in testing is currently in violation of > "packages must be buildable within the same release", I haven't filed an > explicit bug report for that yet because I prefer to focus my initial > bug report on the thing that needs to be fixed to unjam things rather than > on the thing that is already fixed in unstable but is jammed up from > migrating. > > Would you object to a source-only no-change NMU of the current version > so we can get the package in testing back into a consistent state? > > > > > Take Wordpress 5.6 which has just come out. Source upstream right? No, > it has a new theme, therefore a new package therefore NEW will reject a > source-only. > > So it will be impossible, like literally impossible, for 5.6-1 to make > it to testing. > > > > So its needs a binary upload and then a 5.6-2 purely because of these > rules, no other reason. > > > > - Craig > > > > > > On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 10:21, peter green <plugw...@p10link.net <mailto: > plugw...@p10link.net>> wrote: > > > > Package: wordpress > > Version: 5.5.3+dfsg1-1 > > Severity: serious > > > > The release team have decreed that non-buildd binaries can no longer > > migrate to testing, please make a source-only upload so your package > > can migrate. > > >
