On 04/18/2013 10:48, 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.
It handles it by rejecting the later upload. >> 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? [...] > Has anyone tried patching dpkg to keep the epoch in the deb filename? > Anything break? [1] and [2] include at least dpkg-genchanges and dpkg-source breaking. [1] <http://bugs.debian.org/551323> [2] <http://bugs.debian.org/645895> Ansgar -- 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/516fb70b.3010...@debian.org
