On 2013-04-18 10:48 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:29:19PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 04/02/2013 09:18 PM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> > Actually that hits another problem. Namely that the epoch does not >> > appear in the binary package filename. While wheezy would have 1.2.3-1 >> > and unstable would have 1:1.2.3-1 they both produce the same >> > foo_1.2.3-1_amd64.deb. But for certain the file contents will differ, >> > the files won't be bit identical and checksums will differ. The >> > archive can not handle that case. >> The fact that the epoch doesn't appear in the file name is the most >> annoying part of it. Perhaps at some point, we could change that fact, >> and solve the problem, maybe for Jessie? >> >> Thomas > > Why wait? Well, ok, better not add changes to dpkg right now. :) > > Has anyone tried patching dpkg to keep the epoch in the deb filename?
Yes, Guillem did so one year ago but reverted it. > Anything break? Quite a few things, see the thread on http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2012/04/threads.html#00024. Cheers, Sven -- 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/8738uoxlad....@turtle.gmx.de
