> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>(James A. Treacy) writes:
>
> > Should apt have to download the dsc file for a package before it
> > knows what the source files are?
>
> Why on earth not? If it's going to download the source, the .dsc file
> is part of the source and has to be downloaded anyway.
>
It is clearly much more efficient if the .dsc files don't have to be retrieved.
This is simply a matter of policy though.
> > Suppose one port needs a wildly different version of a program
> > to have it work on that architecture.
>
> Then they have 2 options:
>
> (1) Do dirty disgusting hacks like I did for binutils on m68k. (Do a
> binary upload of the different version, ignore the source from
> then on [\begin{plug}trivially with quinn diff\end{plug}])[1]
>
> (2) Upload a new source package with a different name, e.g. foo2.1 as
> opposed to foo or whatever. (Already done for, e.g. glibc)
>
These are both hacks (in the bad sense of the word. Kluge is a better
word, but many people won't know it). I see no reason not to simply allow
multiple versions of source into the archive.
Jay Treacy
