Re: APT overrules self-compiled packages
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:05:12 +0100
Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 05:23:06AM +0200, KennyD wrote:
> > I tried to (re-)compile some debian packages on my machine using
> > apt-get source and dpkg-buildpackage - like I did for years, when I
> > was running potato - just to have optimized code for my AMD K7. But
> > unlike potato's apt, woody's apt reinstalls every selfcompiled package
> > using sources.list everytime I run apt-get upgrade, although it is the
> > same version.
>
> Add a new entry to the top of debian/changelog with a higher version
> number.
>
> > Has Anyone an idea what I could have missed, when I searched for an
> > explicit mention about that behaviour in the documentation? Is that
> > apt's new policy?
>
> As far as I know apt has always behaved like this. Personally I think
> it's a good idea, since it makes bug reports less confusing in the event
> of self-compiled packages, and helps me remember which packages on my
> system I built locally and which are official.
Yea, but I think it would make more sense for the new package to be
created as more of a fork rather than an incremented version. I ran into
this myself a while back and now that I've read through more of the
maintainer and policy documentation it seems that it would make more sense
to create a new package name that "provides" the old package name. Sure
this is currently more work than creating a new changelog entry, but with
the changelog entry you run the risk of hitting the same version number as
the package maintainer and also of having your custom package
auto-upgraded (replaced) when the official package version is moved to
something higher than your entry. That is unless you put your package on
hold, in which case the higher version in the changelog entry is a rather
moot point.
Just my thoughts on the matter. I'll probably put together a quick how-to
when I work out how to go about the above with the least hassle.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Reply to: