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

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:19:11PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> >...
> > That could be done either by a rebuild, or, less costly, by a simple
> > unpack/edit-changelog/repack.
> Repacking breaks with every
>   Depends: somepackage (= ${Source-Version})

Ah yes.  And it's possibly not the only way it could break, so we'd
have to rebuild.  That starts to be a costly mechanism...

> > In that case, if we had libfoo0_1.0-1 in pre-testing, and
> > libfoo0_1.0-2 in unstable, we'd end up with libfoo0_1.0-2.0.1 in
> > pre-testing, and libfoo0_1.0-2.0.2 in unstable, whether the latter was
> > rebuilt or just repacked.
> These version numbers are currently assigned to binary only NMUs, it 
> would create big confusion if they were also used for a different 
> purpose.

But binary NMUs are not much different from what I'm proposing,
especially if we're rebuilding each of these packages, or do I miss
something ?

Yann Dirson    <ydirson@altern.org> |    Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <dirson@debian.org> |   Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro:    <yann.dirson@fr.alcove.com> |  Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
     http://ydirson.free.fr/        | Check <http://www.debian.org/>

Reply to: