Florian Weimer writes ("Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package
name conflicts"):
> There's also the related issue that some binary packages have different
> source packages on different architectures (and different versioning
> schemes). There's no act
Florian Weimer writes ("Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package
name conflicts"):
> There's also the related issue that some binary packages have different
> source packages on different architectures (and different versioning
> schemes). There's no act
* Lucas Nussbaum:
> It might be a good idea to forbid name conflicts, since some tools don't
> consider that they are totally different namespaces.
There's also the related issue that some binary packages have different
source packages on different architectures (and different versioning
schemes)
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007, Ian Jackson wrote:
> To make the existing interface to bugs.debian.org unambiguous the
> following rule is needed:
>
> If there are a source package and a binary package with the same
> name then
>(a) that binary package must be generated from the
>identically-
* Lucas Nussbaum:
> It might be a good idea to forbid name conflicts, since some tools don't
> consider that they are totally different namespaces.
There's also the related issue that some binary packages have different
source packages on different architectures (and different versioning
schemes)
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 04:49:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package
> name conflicts"):
> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package
name conflicts"):
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
> > anothe
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:47:41PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Reading the source sbuild is prepared to parse multiple returns from
> apt-cache just fine. But it ignores the package name and only uses the
> version to keep them apart.
>
> So a case that would screw up sbuild would have to
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> clone 400112 -1
Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package name conflicts
Bug 400112 cloned as bug 408091.
> reassign -1 sbuild
Bug#408091: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package name conflicts
Bug reassigned from package `debian-poli
clone 400112 -1
reassign -1 sbuild
retitle -1 sbuild cannot find source in some cases
severity -1 important
thanks
On 19/01/07 at 12:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:12:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >>
>
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> With this, apt fails:
>
>> $ apt-cache showsrc qd
>> Package: qd
>> Binary: libqd2c2a, libqd-dev
>> Version: 2.1.200-1
>> [...]
>> Package: kfolding
>> Binary: kfolding, qd
>> Version: 1.0.0-rc2-5
>
>
On 18/01/07 at 18:56 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:12:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >
> > In the initial report you mentioned that sbuild has a problem with
> > confusing names like this. Afaik sbuild solely works on source package
> > name and version and that
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:12:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>
>> In the initial report you mentioned that sbuild has a problem with
>> confusing names like this. Afaik sbuild solely works on source package
>> name and version and that is always
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:12:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> In the initial report you mentioned that sbuild has a problem with
> confusing names like this. Afaik sbuild solely works on source package
> name and version and that is always unique. Where do you get a
> conflict?
It use
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With this, apt fails:
> $ apt-cache showsrc qd
> Package: qd
> Binary: libqd2c2a, libqd-dev
> Version: 2.1.200-1
> [...]
> Package: kfolding
> Binary: kfolding, qd
> Version: 1.0.0-rc2-5
As you can see there are two sources that could be what you mean.
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package
name conflicts"):
> Hi,
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Some tools don't like it at all (e.g sbuild), causing confusing
> >
On 14/01/07 at 14:28 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
> > another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package,
> > and the
Hi,
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
> another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package,
> and the 'qd' binary package generated by the kfolding source package
> (in
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 10:45:18PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.7.2.2
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Hi,
>
> Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
> another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package, and
the 'qd' binary package generated by the kfolding source package (in
contrib).
Some tools don'
20 matches
Mail list logo
