Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Mike Bird <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs
>> > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled.
>> Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the first compilation, *do* get new
>> version numbers.
> In Debian yes. Ubuntu recompiles the Debian source, in a
> different environment and with different dependencies, then
> uploads with exactly the same version as Debian.
> Having two different package files with the exactly the same
> name and different content and dependencies drove me crazy
> for a while until we made our migration scripts smarter.
> --Mike Bird
Andreas Barth has some patches for the debian policy and packaging
manual from me under review that also include this situation.
In short it adds (explains the existing) an optional fourth (sub)part
to the debian version:
The debian_revision may contain an additional branch suffix denoting a
"fork" in the debian version number. I suggest 4 types of branches [abcs]:
- 1.2-3+a0.ubuntu.1 - recompile of a package without changes
- 1.2-3+b1 - debian binary only recompile
- 1.2-3+c0.ubuntu.1 - patched source based on the debian version
- 1.2-3+s1.sarge.1 - debian security upload
If that gets accepted into policy I suggest asking all debian based
distributions to use the 'a' or 'c' branch to correctly flag
recompiles and patching. Using the distribution name in the branch
should give an unique enough version to avoid any confusion about
the origin. An unbranched version should always mean the binary is
unmodified (the md5sum matches debians).