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

Re: Multiarch file overlap summary and proposal

Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 19:31:10 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I think that the best long-term way to handle binNMUs may be to move
>> the build number into a different piece of package metadata from the
>> version.  So a binNMU of a package with version 1.4-1 would still have
>> version 1.4-1 but would have a build number of 2 instead of 1.  I think
>> this would be way cleaner in the long run, and not just for multiarch.

> That means then we cannot state a relationship based on the binNMU
> version. And while that might be desirable most of the times, it makes
> it impossible when it might be desirable.

Good point.

> Without considering this deeper, it also reminds me of when Revision was
> a distinct field. In any case how to handle binNMUs is something that
> should be carefully considered and not be rushed out now, just because
> suddently they cannot be used...

I agree with this sentiment.  Personally, I'm fine with moving forward
with a multiarch approach that doesn't allow for binNMUs on a subset of
arches as the first cut, and then go back and figure out what we're doing
with binNMUs later.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: