Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
> > > > do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
> > > > contents. Rebuilding a package with a newer toolchain can cause
> > > > different dependencies and bugs.
> > >
> > > In ubuntu, no changes rebuild-only get the suffix 'buildX' or
> > > 'ubuntuX+1', depending if it has already diverged. Packages with
> > > 'buildX' suffix get synced automatically on the next upload to debian.
> > Are you sure ? Compare the menu package at
> > <http://packages.ubuntu.com/dapper/admin/menu>
> > with the one in sid. They have the same versions (2.1.27) but not the
> > same content (at least the dependencies are different.)
> > No buildX or ubuntuX suffix.
> As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
> is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
> binary package have been rebuilt in an different environment, which
> can caus different dependencies on the resulting binary package.
Yes, this is the definition of a no changes rebuild-only upload.
What I asked was precisely that such upload should be versionned
nevertheless. Debian version binNMU even while there is no source