Re: What warrants a non-maintainer release number?
sanvila@unex.es (Santiago Vila) wrote on 17.12.97 in <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.971217194830.569A-100000@cantor.unex.es>:
> 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. But it should.
Huh?! If the binary changes, the version number should change. It doesn't
matter _why_ the binary changed.
Several binary packages for the same source? What on earth has that to do
with it?! Besides, how is it that the system doesn't allow it? I thought
we had several of those. Stuff like, say, X.
> > Things break if you don't increase the version
> > number (e.g. automatic upgrade and bug reporting) and you don't have
> > to a source release to do a non-maintainer release, just add a new
> > entry to the changelog before you recompile.
>
> Again this is a limitation of our current source|binary packaging scheme.
> Does not mean it has to be that way.
Sounds to me like exactly the way it _should_ be.
> > What advantage do you see in *not* changing the version number?
>
> Changing the *source* version number would be a gratuitous change.
We're talking of the Debian release version, here. I don't understand why
that bugs you; it seems the right thing to me.
> It would be really nice to have something like epochs for
> binary packages coming from the same source.
>
> i.e.
>
> hello_1.3-0 (compilation 0) is older than hello_1.3-0 (compilation 1)
> and dpkg will see the need to upgrade.
That would just needlessly confuse users. Gratuituous confusion is
something we can do without, I think.
MfG Kai
--
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: