Re: binNMUs: please exercise some care

On 2015-10-23 13:28, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
[...]
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
>> It's also not quite that simple, even working things out by hand - see 
>> #599128
>> for example.
> 
> Hm, I’m still under the impression that the +bN suffix to the Debian
> version of the package in the archive is the authoritative source for
> what binNMU version a package currently has, as that’s taking porter
> uploads into account which is a requirement. If the current code
> doesn’t do that I consider it a bug which must be fixed (at the same
> time, or before doing this change), which makes it more tricky, yes.

Specifically, wanna-build doesn't expose the binNMU version information 
for suites other than unstable / experimental (actually, it might be 
that it doesn't for suites that have an overlay - either way, it affects 
{,old}stable and testing), so the only way to be certain what binNMU 
number to use is to check manually. In practice what actually happens is 
that people forget about the bug, schedule the binNMUs and then grumble 
when either dak rejects the packages or something gets confused.

Regards,

Adam