Re: Binary packages with outdated sources
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Daniel Patterson <email@example.com>, Will Lowe <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jonathon Nelson <email@example.com>, Erick Kinnee <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Michael Schmitz <email@example.com>, Petr Cech <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Binary packages with outdated sources
- From: Sven LUTHER <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:20:05 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 19991014162005.A4203@maxime.u-strasbg.fr>
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 19991015000901.A128@azure.humbug.org.au>; from Anthony Towns on Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 12:09:01AM +1000
- References: <[🔎] 19991015000901.A128@azure.humbug.org.au>
On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 12:09:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hello world,
> I've started playing around with verifying binary<->source relationships
> the past few days, and I've come across a number of packages that appear
> to have newer versions of the binaries than the source. The main reason
> for this seems to be arch specific NMUs by the porters, but there are
> a few seemingly normal maintainer uploads too.
> It'd be nice if this could be minimised somewhat. Ideally, it'd be nice
> if it were reduced to just uploads of the -x.x.1 variety (arch specific
> recompiles). Even more ideally, it'd be nice if the Packages.gz entries
> for these included a `source: foo (y-x.x)' so it's completely clear that
> these are just recompiles.
Ideally, there would be a mechanism so this can be done automatically,
i don't even know if what you suggest above could be done with the
current setup, unless you edit stuff by hand, which would be too much
to worry about for the porters i think.
Also notice, that even for porter-uploads, this breaks the license of
packages with a GPL like license, since we make nowhere available the
sources of our changes, however small they are.
One solution would be to change the source format to accept, beside
todays .dsc, .orig.tar.gz and .diff.gz file, also some specific
.arch.diff.gz that applies on top of the .diff.gz, and contain such
porter changes, without having to modify the maintainers source.
Another option would be to automatically mail the porters diff to the
BTS, and put an appropriate notice in the package control
file/description/wherever it better fits.
Just imagine some package author sueing us for not respecting the GPL