Re: Binaryless uploads [Was: FTBFS: architecture all packages]
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Brian May wrote:
> When Jaldhar takes about dependancies, I assume he means normal
> "Depends", not "Build-Depends"???
>
Correct.
[...]
> Source package has the following files (note: this is called a "source
> package" not a "binary package"):
>
> webmin_1.100.orig.tar.gz
> webmin_1.100-2.diff.gz
> webmin_1.100-2.dsc
>
> Extracting this source package and running debian/rules build would
> produce the following *binary packages*:
>
> webmin_1.100-2_all.deb
> webmin-core_1.100-2_all.deb
> webmin-apache_.100-2_all.deb
> webmin-squid_.100-2_all.deb
> [...list truncated...]
>
> Jaldhar, please tell me what the problem is with the above approach.
>
Ok. Lets leave aside for a moment the .debs which would go into contrib
or non-free so would have to be built seperately. What happens if
webmin-squid has an RC bug? As Goswin said, all the webmin-* packages
will be held back from testing. What happens if webmin-squid is ok but
squid itself is not in testing? (or is removed from testing. This could
happen if it has an RC bug at freeze time,) Again all the webmin packages
would be affected. What if webmin-squid has one or two upstream bugfix
releases in between major webmin versions? Every other webmin module
would also have to be rebuilt too even though nothing changed.
What you are suggesting was the way things were done before 0.98 and it
caused all sorts of annoyance for me and the users. I'll make any changes
necessary to be policy-compliant but I'm firm about the multiple-source
package thing.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@debian.org>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Reply to: