On 26/03/11 08:07, Torsten Werner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> The way I did it was one .ddeb per source package, not per binary. So it is
>> $src-ddeb. You can reject them if they are not for $src package (or if $src
>> package doesn't exist in the archive).
> To simplify the archive processes i would prefer having a ddeb per
> binary package instead of source package. It must have the name
> $binary-ddeb and must have the same version as $binary. The ddebs will
> get separate Packages files similar to the udebs. It is even easier
> for our users that they don't need to find out the source package
> name. Can we agree on that?
I have just skimmed over the dicussions from 2009 where we decided that it
should be one ddeb per source package, and it seems that everyone preferred one
ddeb per binary package except the ftpmasters :) So that's fine with me.
I'd add to the requirements that foo-ddeb needs to Depend on foo (=
I'd also mandate the use of build-ids for .ddebs and add refcounting support
(like has been done for multiarch AFAIK) to dpkg for them, so we don't need to
worry about Conflicts / Replaces.
- Re: ddebs
- From: Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: ddebs
- From: Josselin Mouette <email@example.com>