Le Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 10:31:36PM -0400, Joey Hess a écrit: > Colin Watson wrote: > > 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. > > Neither can incremented version numbers in all cases. Consider: > > Depends: foo (= 1.0-1) > > This is a prime reason why this behavior of apt stinks. See exactly this > trouble being run into by the apt-build program in bug #155170. I wish this > behavior could be turned off by easier means than setting up your own > apt repository. > > By the way Julien, could you explain what you did to close bug #155170? I need > to add some similar fix to apt-src probably. Yes, apt-build 0.6 creates a local repository with built packages. Its repository line is the first of sources.list, so its packages have biggest priority for apt. Furthermore, the repository can be exported. -- Julien Danjou .''`. Debian developer : :' : http://jdanjou.org `. `' http://people.debian.org/~acid `- GPG: 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974 C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD
Attachment:
pgpc5iBPTQvTU.pgp
Description: PGP signature