epoch in filenames for packages (was: Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)
On 04/18/2013 10:48, 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.
It handles it by rejecting the later upload.
>> 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?
[...]
> Has anyone tried patching dpkg to keep the epoch in the deb filename?
> Anything break?
[1] and [2] include at least dpkg-genchanges and dpkg-source breaking.
[1] <http://bugs.debian.org/551323>
[2] <http://bugs.debian.org/645895>
Ansgar
Reply to: