On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 12:20:37AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Source package has the following files (note: this is called a "source > > package" not a "binary package"): > > > > webmin_1.100.orig.tar.gz > > webmin_1.100-2.diff.gz > > webmin_1.100-2.dsc > > > > Extracting this source package and running debian/rules build would > > produce the following *binary packages*: > > > > webmin_1.100-2_all.deb > > webmin-core_1.100-2_all.deb > > webmin-apache_.100-2_all.deb > > webmin-squid_.100-2_all.deb > > [...list truncated...] > > > > Jaldhar, please tell me what the problem is with the above approach. > > > > You will notice that there is only one source package, but multiple > > binary packages.
> Say webmin-squid now has a RC bug, that would keep all webin debs out > of testing, right? Yep. And given that upstream offers webmin as an all-in-one solution to web-based management needs, I don't really see any reason why they shouldn't be kept lock-step with one another. I particularly don't see why it's good that bugs in this group of packages themselves be ignored for testing processing of the others. Does webmin even provide any standard APIs that guarantee particular modules will work with particular versions of webmin? Version slip here seems like it could pose a serious problem, even *beyond* the usual partial upgrades question. > PS: If that is your problem write better code. :) Very... -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpyH15POXUZP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
