On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:56:56AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:29:59PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > But once we are able to trigger a rebuild with sourceful NMUs, as > > Ubuntu does, binNMUs will hopefully be a thing of the past. > > Amusingly, the way we do it in Ubuntu is a huge hassle in some cases, > and at least some of us would rather have binNMUs. (That's partly > because it's a manual process; if it were automated it would be better, > but it still wouldn't solve the problem that in some cases you really do > want to do single-architecture rebuilds without having to rebuild a > stack of packages on slower architectures entirely unnecessarily. Hi, > Haskell.)
So. binNMU's are special in that they're linked (in the dak db) to a source with a different version than the binary package. My point was, really, that we could change the "special" feature of a binNMU so that it isn't linked to a souce with a different version anymore, but instead so that the source version of architecture X doesn't necessarily need to correspond to the source version of architecture Y. In effect, that would result in sourceful architecture-specific uploads rather than binNMU's. Of course, that doesn't fix the multiarch problem, but it does fix the reproducible build issue. -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26
