Re: epoch in filenames for packages (was: Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:04:11AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> 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.
I wonder what would happen if one uploaded a foo_1.2.3-1_amd64.deb
with a new epoch but same hash. :)
> >> 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
Both of those are part of dpkg so they should have been patched too. I
ment does anything outside of dpkg break. But that is probably covered
in the thread mentioned in the last mail.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: