[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: package compilation madness

I'd say it probably belongs on debian-devel, since I've had the same
problems. I don't neccessarily want to re-get the source and kpkg my
pcmcia-cs every time I have to update... Or even re- dpkg--install my kustom


-----Original Message-----
From: Drew Parsons [mailto:dfparsons@ucdavis.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 12:54 PM
To: debian-laptop@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: package compilation madness

On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 11:04:27AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> Apt will assume you want the most up-to-date package, and, since the
> package on the ftp server is newer than the one you built, it gets
> preferred.  The easy solution is to put the package on hold -- but
> this has the disadvantage that you *don't* get newer versions at all.

That doesn't make sense though.  The versions are the *same*.  The one on
the ftp server is *not* newer!

> Actually, it's not really about "newer", it's about having a
> version number that sorts later, so, one possibility is to use a
> special version number that will always sort later.  This is the trick
> suggested for custom kernels.  Thus, you could make bzip 0.9.5d-my2 or
> even my-0.9.5d-2.  The former would stick until a new upstream
> release, the former would stick basically forever (unless the debian
> maintainer increases the "epoch", which we won't get into now).

Making a custom build would be a moderately reasonable solution, but how can
it actually be done for an ordinary package?  No joke, looking at the source
tree in bzip2-0.9.5d/, created by apt-get source, I can't even find where
0.9.5d-2 is defined, except for a line in ./debian/changelog.

> What I'd really like to see is a way to flag a package as "maintained
> locally".

That would be an excellent idea, especially for pcmcia-cs.

> For now, putting the package on hold is probably your best bet.

hmm, perhaps.  But it just doesn't make sense that the version on the ftp
server is considered "newer" then the one I (more recently) compiled.

> (This thread really belongs on debian-user, so I've set the reply-to
> field.)

technically you're very right, but debian-user uses *way* too much

thanks for the ideas.


Reply to: