On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:47:26PM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote: > Is it a technical requirement (of dpkg, apt, and/or dak), that packages be > named ${pkgname}_${version}_${arch}.${ext} (${pkgname}_${version}.${ext} for > source), or merely (or mostly) policy?
It's a technical requirement for apt and (to a somewhat lesser extent, but still) the archive that names be unique. Other than that, nothing. [...] > But the package name, version, and architecture is of course written down in > the various control files, and the file names are listed in the Packages and > Sources files that apt downloads. So as long as name collisions can be > avoided (for example in simple repositories holding just one version and > architecture of a package at a time), the file name technically shouldn't > matter, should it? That's right. Try it: cp /var/cache/apt/archives/aptitude_0.4.4-4_powerpc.deb ~/foo.deb sudo dpkg -i ~/foo.deb -- <Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]