Re: Multiarch file overlap summary and proposal
Guillem Jover <email@example.com> 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.
> 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>