On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g., > > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure > > which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs). If it were > > essential to version the packages differently, I would say that the source > > package versions should be changed as well. Bin-NMUs are more trouble than > > they are worth. > > The Source-Version problem will not affect Ubuntu because they rebuild > both binary: all and binary: any packages. The issue with Debian style > binNMU is that we only rebuild the binary: any packages that will have > a different source version than the binary: all packages. > You just need to bump the version before rebuilding the packages and > that's it. It is not different from rebuilding the packages after a > minor change.
You're reiterating what I've said: binNMUs won't really work; updating the source package version would be the more reasonable way to accomplish the same goal (though there are definitely tradeoffs there as well, and I think we have more important issues to tackle at this point). > > Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed, > > though? This is only an issue when mixing packages between different > > derivatives, which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very > > much inclined to try to un-break it in this particular way, given that > > it's non-trivial. > > At least to avoid namespace conflict between Debian and Ubuntu .deb files. That seems like an abstract goal; what actual problem would be solved? -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]