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.
> 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?
>
> Thomas
Why wait? Well, ok, better not add changes to dpkg right now. :)
Has anyone tried patching dpkg to keep the epoch in the deb filename?
Anything break?
MfG
Goswin
--
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/20130418084850.GB24658@frosties
