On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:04:11AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > 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.
I wonder what would happen if one uploaded a foo_1.2.3-1_amd64.deb with a new epoch but same hash. :) > >> 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 Both of those are part of dpkg so they should have been patched too. I ment does anything outside of dpkg break. But that is probably covered in the thread mentioned in the last mail. 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/20130418144535.GD21076@frosties
