Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On 2013-04-18 10:48 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:29:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 04/02/2013 09:18 PM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > Actually that hits another problem. Namely that the epoch does not
>> > appear in the binary package filename. While wheezy would have 1.2.3-1
>> > and unstable would have 1:1.2.3-1 they both produce the same
>> > foo_1.2.3-1_amd64.deb. But for certain the file contents will differ,
>> > the files won't be bit identical and checksums will differ. The
>> > archive can not handle that case.
>> The fact that the epoch doesn't appear in the file name is the most
>> annoying part of it. Perhaps at some point, we could change that fact,
>> and solve the problem, maybe for Jessie?
>>
>> Thomas
>
> Why wait? Well, ok, better not add changes to dpkg right now. :)
>
> Has anyone tried patching dpkg to keep the epoch in the deb filename?
Yes, Guillem did so one year ago but reverted it.
> Anything break?
Quite a few things, see the thread on
http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2012/04/threads.html#00024.
Cheers,
Sven
Reply to: