Re: dpkg-source v2
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 00:45, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:27:12PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > walters@space-ghost> l evolution-1.0.7
> > drwxr-sr-x 50 walters src 4096 2002-07-21 03:01 db-3.1.17
> > drwxr-sr-x 30 walters src 4096 2002-07-21 03:01 evolution-1.0.7
> Is this significantly better than having db3.1_3.1.17.dsc and
> db3.1_3.17_i386.deb and/or db3.1-src_3.1.17_all.deb in the archive,
> and setting evolution to Build-Depend: on it as necessary?
Well, that is the big question, I guess. Most packages don't tend to do
this, though, even though they could do it right now, without any
changes to dpkg-source.
I guess it's just more work for both the packager (who has to actually
make a whole foo-src package, including debian/rules, copyright,
description, etc. ), and it means more overrides to add for the
ftpmasters. Also, I bet the practice actually started before the advent
When designing dpkg-source v2, I looked at the current practice, and
said to myself "people want this feature". Some of our most important
packages work this way, like gcc and glibc.
Then again, maybe multi-upstream source packages aren't worth it; maybe
we should just recommend that people Build-Depend on foo-src packages.
Perhaps someone from the glibc or gcc teams has some input on this? I
personally don't maintain any multi-upstream source packages.
> If you say that the multisource format is only for packages whose
> upstream source is split into multiple files, rather than for cross-source
> dependencies and such, you could expect that the version number on each
> of the files will be the same.
Ah, right. So we could remove the version from the sub-sources. Good
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com