Re: APT overrules self-compiled packages

[Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 01:04:14PM -0500, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> 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.

Provides currently can't satisfy versioned dependencies, so this will
often be inadequate.

> 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

Add something like .0.local.1 to the end of the version number.

> and also of having your custom package auto-upgraded (replaced) when
> the official package version is moved to something higher than your
> entry.

You can always use a high epoch (e.g. "9:") at the beginning of the
version number to guard against that.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]