Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:19:11PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:41:05AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> >...
> > That could be done either by a rebuild, or, less costly, by a simple
> > unpack/edit-changelog/repack.
>
> Repacking breaks with every
> Depends: somepackage (= ${Source-Version})
Ah yes. And it's possibly not the only way it could break, so we'd
have to rebuild. That starts to be a costly mechanism...
> > In that case, if we had libfoo0_1.0-1 in pre-testing, and
> > libfoo0_1.0-2 in unstable, we'd end up with libfoo0_1.0-2.0.1 in
> > pre-testing, and libfoo0_1.0-2.0.2 in unstable, whether the latter was
> > rebuilt or just repacked.
>
> These version numbers are currently assigned to binary only NMUs, it
> would create big confusion if they were also used for a different
> purpose.
But binary NMUs are not much different from what I'm proposing,
especially if we're rebuilding each of these packages, or do I miss
something ?
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <dirson@debian.org> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro: <yann.dirson@fr.alcove.com> | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
Reply to: