>>"Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> I feel that native packages should not have a debian
Manoj> revision, but not strongly enough or with reasons to be
Manoj> able to convincingly argue that feeling be made mandatory
Manoj> in policy.
Brian> I disagree.
The you should not be surprised by my continued disagreement
with your analysis.
Brian> The problem here is that the Debian version serves two tasks:
Brian> 1. has the package changed from the upstream version?
Brian> 2. has the package been rebuilt?
Eh?
Brian> So obviously 1 is not relevant but 2 still is. eg. consider a
Brian> package that was built against a buggy library, and the
Brian> package has to be rebuilt in order to fix the problem. No
Brian> source needs to change, so updating the version number is
Brian> (IMHO) an overkill.
If nothing else, the changelog needs to be modified to reflect
that the package was rebuilt, and certainly conflicts need to be
introduced against the bad version numbers of the buggy library.
If I can deduce what you intend, you seem to be trying to
separate the packaging aspect of native debian packages from the rest
of the code. In this case, you should go to the full upstream-debian
versioning system, and produce a debian diff; so that you do not
upload the whole source for packaging changes.
I disagree that there is a burning need to have a special
syntax to define a case where a revision number changes with no
change in the source _or_ a diff being produced; I hold that the
latter is buggy, and fails to document the need for the change.
I see no need to introduce a whole new syntax for packages to
accomplish this; we already have a means for decoupling the packaing
code from the rest of the code.
Brian> Then again, the current solution isn't very optimal either. As
Brian> changing the Debian revision number requires changing the name
Brian> of the source file, even though the source file has not
Brian> changed.
You are very mistaken. Indeed, with such an assumption, the
rest of your analysis is suspect, since it may be founded upon these
incorrect basis.
If nothing else, the changelog needs changing, so the source
has indeed changed (or the diff has)
manoj
--
When I left you, I was but the pupil. Now, I am the master. -- Darth
Vader
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
