* Bill Allombert [Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:39:36 +0200]:
> Some distributions/people rebuild a lot of Debian packages from Debian
> source while making no change to the source. While this is technically
> a binNMU they seldom bother to bump the version, which lead to two debs
> files with different content (if they are built with a different version
> of gcc, e.g) which somehow break the package version idea and make very
> hard to see it is not the one compiled by Debian.
> This is understandable since bumping the version can cause unforeseen
> bugs (though I would like very much a list of package that cannot be
> binNMUed).
Rebuild arch:all packages then.
> So I propose a alternate solution:
> If the distro foobar rebuild packages on i386, they could use
> i386foobar as architecture name instead of i386, this way every
> package they rebuild will be clearly marked as such.
> Of course, if foobar want to allow regular Debian package to be installed,
> they can just patch dpkg so that it accept both kind of package.
> The morale of the story is: since we have now comprehensive plateform
> handling with CPU-SYSTEM, why not go a little farther and add a BUILDER
> field with the suitable logic in dpkg so that it allow to install
> packages from any builder by default ?
This would be a gross hack, and I don't see why people who don't
bother to use a simple, clean and tested mechanism to mark rebuilds
(namely, dch -i) would go and use this other yet-to-be-implemented
one.
IMHO, it's like if you say: "sometimes we move files around packages
but forget to add the proper replaces field; as this annoys our users,
let's make dpkg silently overwrite moved files".
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
The true teacher defends his pupils against his own personal influence.
-- Amos Bronson Alcott
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
