On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 07:32:50PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The problem is that db hasn't been obsoleted by another package, so it > > should probably still be built. > > The source package "db" IS obsolete. All the packages previously > built from it (basically, libdb2*) now build from the source package > "db2". All except "libdb2++-dbg", which we probably won't miss.
This is very bad. It seems as Ben renamed the source package. The Sources file looks like this (see below). The problem is that there are now two source packages which produce the same binaries. How can an autobuilder know which of the two should be build? The simple answer "look at the version number" will work in the most simple cases, but a source package can give *any* version number to the bianry packages it produces. So, in theory, the below package "db" could produce libdb2-util 9:9, and the package "db2" could produce libdb2-util 0.1. There is no automatic way to determine that. The problem will quickly be revealed when the actual packages are uploaded, as dinstall will refuse to downgrade. However, this requires manual maintenance on the side of the maintainer of the autobuilder, and it required that db2 is actually build and uploaded (so you need to be aware of db2 already). This defeats autobuilding nicely. Thanks Ben :) It may be argued that the sources file is incorrect: It should not list db. But this depends on what the sources file actually should contain. As long as there are packages build from db in the unstable distribution, one might wish that db is included in the sources file. Ben, was there a hard requirement to rename the source? It is okay to rename db to db2 if you intend to continue with db to build libdb3 packages. But they got into their own source, so that's probably not the case. Hm. At some time, the db source will be deleted (when all existing packages have been superceeded). So this is a temporary problem. But as long as you don't know about it from some other case, there is no indication that there is another source to built. Maybe we need a "Source-Replaces" field, or something akin? (As with binary packages, renaming, splitting and replacing seems to be a not-so-easy problem). Thanks, Marcus Package: db Binary: libdb2-util, libdb2++-dev, libdb2++, libdb2++-dbg, libdb2-dev, libdb2-dbg, libdb2 Version: 2:2.7.7-3 Priority: required Section: libs Maintainer: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Build-Depends: sharutils, gs, autoconf, automake Architecture: any Standards-Version: 3.1.0 Format: 1.0 Directory: pool/main/d/db Files: d73444224bd235bdc22d06c8bd3c46ff 680 db_2.7.7-3.dsc 20256735091ee382c6601117d82d749a 1112976 db_2.7.7.orig.tar.gz 7e2c0849ccf81bc64cf67fcd1fd0b18c 88784 db_2.7.7-3.diff.gz Package: db2 Binary: libdb2-util, libdb2++-dev, libdb2++, db2-doc, libdb2-dev, libdb2-dbg, libdb2 Version: 2:2.7.7-4 Priority: required Section: libs Maintainer: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Build-Depends: debhelper, autoconf, automake Build-Depends-Indep: gs, lynx Architecture: any Standards-Version: 3.5.2.0 Format: 1.0 Directory: pool/main/d/db2 Files: 7b266f9d1c689aefa8b0d70c25f21ce8 706 db2_2.7.7-4.dsc dd7b6cd2b5dbd0246f88814144e43fe8 1112015 db2_2.7.7.orig.tar.gz f836753bccb79bd6b53cb8f8d167b7ef 76136 db2_2.7.7-4.diff.gz -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
