[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: What is the best method to update only some binary packages


On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 06:31:03PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 01:47:51 +0900
> Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> wrote:
> > I know there is a way to do it 
> ??

dh_gencontrol as I posted in another message.

As I remember, it was used before I adopted the maintenance of
mant-guide. (before 2003)

> > > Generally, that is not what you actually want to do.
> > > 
> > > 1. The source for 1.0 has probably been removed by the archive software
> > > so distributing 1.0 is now illegal.
> > 
> > Are you sure?
> Yes. I run several repositories. 

Good.  I do not do dak etc.  I just want to make sure I use best method
for upcoming updates in 21st century.


> The problem gets worse with non-native packages when a new upstream
> release is made. Keeping the gcc source package around for various
> versions according to the state of various packages built from the gcc
> source that haven't changed - I can't really see the ftpmasters liking
> that idea.

I do not know ftpmaster but this was initially done by someone who has
access to the mater. Most developers like me is excluded from the master.

> It is also hard to ensure that maintainers correctly synchronise the
> packages - you'd need a whole new process to check the content that
> would have been included against the content still packaged in the old
> version.

This is very valid concern.  This was the reason I stopped using it.

> I don't see that it is worth investigation at this stage and certainly
> not on this list. Take it to debian-devel if you want to start work on
> the various fixes and scripts that could be necessary to make it sane.

I got your point.  I have no intention to make more complicated

> > This way user will not be forced to download another documentation
> > package in which only the version number is bumped.  That is waiste for
> > everyone and can not be solved by local mirror nor by local cache
> > server.
> Of course it can - the local mirror is shared between various users and
> those users can use rsync.

rsync should work though.  It just produces archive with some
inconsistency as the parent mirror.


Reply to: