Re: Grouping packages (infra-513663 branch)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2011-02-20 18:18, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hey
>
> So I spent some time today on the infrastructure branch and I have
> committed some prototype code for handling package grouping.
>
> [...]
A follow up on my own email; Raphael asked over IRC how grouping was
supposed to handle processing of multiple versions of the same package.
I never thought there was much of a use-case for it, but Raphael
mentioned he had used it.
As the attentive reader may have noticed in a recent commit (or two) I
figured out the answer for this.
Groups are now identified as "${src_name}_${src_version}" in the
prototype grouper. Finding for source packages was trivial... For
changes I used the Source field and the Version field in the changes file.
The only "real" obstacle were binary packages. If the Source field is
missing, then source name and version is assumed to be identical to the
binary name and version. If the source field is present, but lacks a
version, then source version is assumed to be the same as the binary
version and otherwise the src version is taken from the source field of
the binary.
This works very well, complies with the policy[1] and current
implementation of tools.
Though there is one more thing to consider: architecture. For binary
packages, this is trivial. Another architecture => different package,
just add it to existing group (if any). Source packages are some what
easy as well as they all have arch "source" and thus all but the first
are "duplicates".
But how should grouping handle multiple changes files
from different architectures? Add the architecture dependent files from
the new changes file and (silently) ignore the rest (incl. the changes
file itself)?
>
> Comments and patches are (as always) welcome,
> ~Niels
>
[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Source
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=iFje
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: