On Sat, 16 Nov 2024, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 11:53:25AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
On Sat 16 Nov 2024 at 15:54:17 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 03:11:37PM +0100, Patrice Duroux wrote:
On Sid, building and installing locally modified packages for testing
at the same version as in the archive, I am surprised that apt upgrade
will reinstall any of those installed by the one from the archive. I
did not remember such a "feature" in the past, unless my memory plays
tricks on me:-).
I think you should change the package version (and thus the name) if you
make local changes. ISTR that I added some ~local0 suffix. Then you can
talk to your package manager about it (e.g. pinning,etc.)
I found adding an epoch number was the simplest surefire method, as:
. it's the most significant field in the version number,
. you can leave the version number unchanged as an indication
of the unmodified source,
. a descriptive suffix is fine, but no help against upgrades.
I was in this deliberation too, and came to the conclusion that
sometimes you want a newer version overriding yours (perhaps
you expect Debian's fix to be more important than yours, perhaps
you even expect theirs to supersede yours), while sometimes you
don't.
That's why I ended up with the suffix and letting the sysadmin
(often me, with a different hat on ;-) making that preference
explicit in the APT machinery.
That's what I do too.
+~tjw12r1
if I've patched the current version.
~tjw12r1 if I've backported a higher version.
I scan for newer versions in debian and auto-rebase my changes (unless
the rebase fails) so I'm rarely more than a day or two behind on
security fixes.
r1 -> r2 etc if I rebuild a package for any reason.
That weird +~ is to take account of nmus and ensuring that the next
debian version is always higher than mine. I got caught out when a +deb
security fix looked before my +tjw version so my system didn't notice
that 'upstream' had a fix.
tim@einstein(6):~ (none)$ apt-cache policy tgt
tgt:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 1:1.0.85-1+deb12u1+~tjw12r1
Version table:
1:1.0.85-1+deb12u1+~tjw12r1 995
995 http://aptmirror.home.woodall.me.uk/local bookworm/main amd64
Packages
1:1.0.85-1+deb12u1 500
500 http://deb.debian.org/debian bookworm/main amd64 Packages
Not sure if this was a case but it was a recent nmu that added a +deb
that could have been missed.
(the maintainer appears mia so I reported the bug upstream but not in
debian)
