On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 11:19:30PM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 12:39:14AM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 03:10:34PM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> > >>> I got an issue though, but I think it is related to glibc itself:
> > >>> after installing the built source packages, aptitude/apt-get
> > >>> absolutely want to upgrade them with the binary versions:
> > :::: The following packages will be upgraded:
> > :::: libc6 libc6-dbg libc6-dev libc6-prof
> > >>> Is this normal?
> >>> It is if you've not updated the changelog to be a new version, as
> >>> apt-get will prioritise remote versions of a package over currently
> >>> installed versions, if the metadata differs (as it will when you
> >>> rebuild a package locally)
> Curiously this doesn't seem to happen for all packages. libc6 and
> dtach, for example, will be replaced; mutt and dpatch won't (for stable).
That is weird. Check apt-cache policy for those packages, and see what
it says. My understanding is that it should happen for any package,
as locally install packages have priority 100, and nothing else gets a
lower priority by default.
> >> Is there a way to automatically update a locally modified package, or
> >> can't we avoid a manual processing?
>> You could use dch -i to increment the version, or dch -n to increment
>> the NMU version.
>> You could hack dch to have a --local-build switch, which increments the
>> Debian version by 0.0.0.1 and will therefore be greater than the source
>> you built, and less than a bin-NMU of the package. And then send the
>> patch as a wishlist bug to devscripts. I think it'd be generally useful,
>> to be honest.
> Some other tricky stuff happens when multiple binary packages are
> built from a single source one - the versions in the binary packages
> dependencies may need to be resynchronized (eg libc6-i686 Depends on
> the same version of libc6).
Where this happens, I hope they're using the various macros provided for
that sort of thing (${Source-Version} etc) so updating the changelog
file is all that's neccessary. Nothing I'm rebuilding has shown any
issues for .0.0.1 increments in the version. (Mind you, I'm not
rebuilding anything libc. I like my system to keep running. ^_^)
> Changing the local version seems to trigger several issues. Maybe
> there's a way to make local packages more prioritary than remote ones?
You could prolly put an apt-preferences entry so that packages from
/var/lib/dpkg/status
get a higher priority than 100, but that strikes me as a disaster
waiting to happen, although I can't actually explain why.
Frankly, I just maintain a directory in my home directory called
LocalDeb and build everything in that by hand. (Now using pbuilder-uml
so I can trim the number of -dev packages floating around my system.)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
Paul.Hampson@Anu.edu.au
"No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?"
-- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean"
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgp4Xc5l3nvhl.pgp
Description: PGP signature