+++ Jakub Wilk [2015-12-09 14:47 +0100]: > * Stéphane Glondu <glo...@debian.org>, 2015-12-07, 16:23: > >>* is there a way to track down who uploaded -3+b1? > >For "who", I don't know. > > BinNMU are usually scheduled by the Release Team. > This package was part of the ncurses transition: > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ncurses.html > > >But for "why", cf > >/usr/share/doc/unison2.40.102/changelog.Debian.amd64.gz: > >>unison2.40.102 (2.40.102-3+b1) sid; urgency=low, binary-only=yes > >> > >> * Binary-only non-maintainer upload for amd64; no source changes. > >> * Rebuild against ncurses 6.0. > >> > >>-- amd64 / i386 Build Daemon (babin) <buildd-ba...@buildd.debian.org> Fri, > >>31 Jul 2015 09:50:21 +0200
> >Also, the date is misleading; it corresponds to the last sourceful > >upload, not the binNMU. > > Looks like a fallout after #620112. > This change in sbuild should be reverted. It didn't fix binNMU > co-installability, and made binMNU changelog entries less helpful. It may not have fixed binNMU co-installability on its own, but it looks to me as if it was a necessary part of solving that issue? Has it been superceded by changes in changelog handling for binNMUs (I vaguely recall some changes in this area but am not sure what the current state is)? i.e it's not clear to me that this should simply be reverted because it is 'misleading'. Not-breaking MA:same co-installability with binNMUs is an important goal IMHO. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
