David Kalnischkies <kalnischk...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 23:10, Carsten Hey <cars...@debian.org> wrote:
>> * David Kalnischkies [2012-02-16 03:59 +0100]:
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 00:39, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote:
>>> (the only problem i see is that i don't have ${source:Version} available
>>> currently in the version structure, but we haven't even tried pushing
>>> apt's abibreak to sid specifically as i feared "last-minute" changes
)
>>
>> I'm not sure if you meant this with "Source tag", anyway, the 'Packages'
>> files miss the source version too, but this could be added as optional
>> field that would be used if it differs from the 'Version:' field.
>
> It's already in for quiet some time ('current' sid amd64, first hit):
> Package: 3depict
> Source: 3depict (0.0.9-1)
> Version: 0.0.9-1+b1
> [
]
>
> It's used in other places in APT, e.g. 'apt-get source', which just looks
> at the Packages file stanza. That's fine as this isn't a speed critical
> operation - but if we want it for the lock-step operation apt needs that
> piece of information in its internal structures for fast access to it and
> adding new fields in these structures will require an abibreak.
> That's the intended meaning of the quoted sentence.
Except that doesn't have to work (sorry for the ubuntu part):
Package: gcc
Source: gcc-defaults (1.93ubuntu1)
Version: 4:4.4.3-1ubuntu1
What would the version be for a binNMU of gcc-defaults? I think it would
be
Package: gcc
Source: gcc-defaults (1.93ubuntu1)
Version: 4:4.4.3-1ubuntu1+b1
What we want is for apt/dpkg to consider this to be compatible with
"4:4.4.3-1ubuntu1".
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r4xly64e.fsf@frosties.localnet
