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

Re: binaries provided by multiple source packages

Ok i see that you got apache in the middle of a transition, that is why
your check still see apache-perl as a source.

a few months ago there were 3 apache flavours built from 3 different
sources. apache, apache-ssl and apache-perl. Since the apache source code
was present in all of them and they were often out of sync we (as apache
maintainer team) decided to merge the 3 sources in one (apache) and be
able to build the 3 flavours out of it. A special cases has been done for
libapache-mod-perl. mod_perl is a requirement to build apache-perl so we
decided to generate libapache-mod-perl together with apache{-ssl,-perl}
without bloating the archive with another source package.

The only reason you still find apache-perl as source in the archive is
because ftp-master scripts still have to remove it. Of course this is
valid for sid/sarge. woody can't be changed and it willl ship the 3
sources that you see in the pool.

I think this should clarify everything.


On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Glenn McGrath wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:38:12 +0200 (CEST)
> Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fabbione@fabbione.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > The following is a list of packages whose names are inconsistent
> > > with accepted behaviour (plz correct me if im wrong)
> >
> > Sorry for my ignorance but which is the accepted behaviour? i couldn't
> > find anything in the policies and in devel-reference (just had a fast
> > look trough them)
> Section 3.1
> Every package must have a name that's unique within the Debian archive.
> The package name is included in the control field Package, ....
> It is open to interpretation a little bit i guess, but as i see it
> Every Package field in the Sources file must be unique to that file, and
> every Package field in the Packages file must be unique to that file.
> As it stands the apache-perl binary package (to pick on your case) could
> be generated from two different source packages, only one binary will
> ever be accepted as part of the binary release, if you try and insert a
> second one the old binary will be thrown out.
> Its hard for machines (autobuilders etc) to know which source the binary
> really should be generated from.
> Im not sure what should be done with regard to bootstapping apache.
> Glenn

Our mission: make IPv6 the default IP protocol
"We are on a mission from God" - Elwood Blues


Reply to: