On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> > However, the `non-maintainer' part of this discussion is totally
> > unimportant. What matters is the question `in which cases has the version
> > number to be incremented and in which cases can it be left'?
> >
> > I think we all agree now that the version number has to be incremented
> > whenever the binary package is changed on master (even in Incoming/).
>
> There are more complex aspects to this. I was talking to Christoph today
> and he mentioned that there were some cases with two different sources for
> packages. A simple example is his debs.fuller.edu where a number of
> experimental versions of packages are present. We also speculated that the
> KDE people might have custom releases of the KDE debs on the KDE CD and so
> on. We need to have some policy to prevent different .debs from having the
> same version number that covers this.
Yes, this is another important issue. A possible solution to this has been
presented in the recent KDE-virtual-package discussion on debian-policy:
Each .deb should carry a new control field called "Origin:" or
"Distributor:" or something like that. For example, all Debian packages
would have "Origin: SPI".
This has to be combined with digital signatures on the packages so
that noone else can put out an "Origin: SPI" package.
With that, our package tools (dpkg, deity, etc.) could check for possible
problems when packages from different sources are mixed.
(Telling non-Debian people how which version numbers to use will
definitely not work.)
Thanks,
Chris
-- Christian Schwarz
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Debian has a logo! [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Check out the logo PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
pages at http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
