On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 23:35 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > Suppose source foo_1.0.tar.gz produces: > foo-updated_1.0_all.deb > foo-static_1.0_all.deb > > Then with next source foo_1.1.tar.gz with updated contents will produce > now with normal build script: > foo-updated_1.1_all.deb (updated from foo-updated_1.0_all.deb) > foo-static_1.1_all.deb (same as foo-static_1.0_all.deb) > > Then What is the best way to make update archive to have: > foo-updated_1.1_all.deb > foo-static_1.0_all.deb 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. 2. Keeping the source around is not sensible across 20,000 packages. 3. foo-static_1.0_all.deb will not contain the changelog entry for 1.1 causing differences in the copyright and changelog data across different installations 4. The dependencies may have changed (at least with respect to Arch:any packages that use shlibs) which can cause aggravation with transitions. Even with python etc., where packages themselves can be arch:all, having old packages around that have not been rebuilt against the latest interpreter is asking of nasty, unreproducible and incomprehensible bug reports. > This way user will not be forced to download same package again. If you want to minimise the download bandwidth, try using a local mirror and using rsync. i.e. symlink the old .deb to the new .deb filename, rsync from the local mirror and then install the modified .deb. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part