Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 17 Dec 1997, James Troup wrote: > > > Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > This is part of an email exchange Sven and I had. Simply put, I put > > > in a new alpha binary of dpkg-1.4.0.19 that represented nothing but > > > a recompile to pick up new libg++, ncurses, etc. Sven suggested > > > that this warranted a non-maintainer-release number, whereas I had > > > gotten the idea that non-maintainer-releases suggested code changes. > > > > I hope Guy will reject that. If the binary changes, the version > > number should change. > > This is that way because our package system does not allow several binary > packages for the same source package.
True. > But it should. Maybe. Or not. How often do we need it and how much of a mess would this add? IMHO the reason why Michael Alan Dorman hesitated to increase the version number is that he considered the alpha-specific recompile a change that should not affect any other architecture. Please note that such considerations didn't occur with the big libc6 recompile for i386. In the end such an architecture-specific recompile implemented as non-maintainer release will cause recompiles on all architectures. This is only a problem when this happens too often. IMHO the current state doesn't have too much impact, because: - either the recompile is done manually. Then the person doing this can choose to not build a binary architecture for an architecture where this isn't necessary. - or the recompile is done automatically, then it doesn't consume human time. > hello_1.3-0 (compilation 0) is older than hello_1.3-0 (compilation 1) > and dpkg will see the need to upgrade. This might make a good idea, but I think it is too much change for too few cases. Sven -- Sven Rudolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.sax.de/~sr1/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .