Re: What warrants a non-maintainer release number?
Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
> On 17 Dec 1997, James Troup wrote:
>
> > Michael Alan Dorman <mdorman@viper.law.miami.edu> writes:
> >
> > > This is part of an email exchange Sven and I had. Simply put, I put
> > > in a new alpha binary of dpkg-1.4.0.19 that represented nothing but
> > > a recompile to pick up new libg++, ncurses, etc. Sven suggested
> > > that this warranted a non-maintainer-release number, whereas I had
> > > gotten the idea that non-maintainer-releases suggested code changes.
> >
> > I hope Guy will reject that. If the binary changes, the version
> > number should change.
>
> This is that way because our package system does not allow several binary
> packages for the same source package.
True.
> But it should.
Maybe. Or not.
How often do we need it and how much of a mess would this add? IMHO
the reason why Michael Alan Dorman hesitated to increase the version
number is that he considered the alpha-specific recompile a change
that should not affect any other architecture. Please note that such
considerations didn't occur with the big libc6 recompile for i386.
In the end such an architecture-specific recompile implemented as
non-maintainer release will cause recompiles on all
architectures. This is only a problem when this happens too
often.
IMHO the current state doesn't have too much impact, because:
- either the recompile is done manually. Then the person doing this
can choose to not build a binary architecture for an architecture
where this isn't necessary.
- or the recompile is done automatically, then it doesn't consume
human time.
> hello_1.3-0 (compilation 0) is older than hello_1.3-0 (compilation 1)
> and dpkg will see the need to upgrade.
This might make a good idea, but I think it is too much change for
too few cases.
Sven
--
Sven Rudolph <sr1@inf.tu-dresden.de>
http://www.sax.de/~sr1/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: