Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 03:06:11PM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote: >> Since my packages are "unofficial" I want them to be built for sarge and >> sid (i use pbuilder for that), but in the same upstream version; is that >> allowed by the policy. What i have to do? > > Policy is only about the official Debian archive, not about things you build > for yourself.
But it is usually a good idea to follow Debian policy if you create packages for your site. For example here, with respect to version numbers, it will make sure that updated packages from the Debian archive are treated as newer as your versions. Furthermore, if you use a consistent version numbering, it's easy to stick to that scheme when you continously prepare custom-built packages from the current source packages in unstable or testing. >> I tought i can use a different package version for binary packages >> targeted to different distribution, does something like package_x.x-1 >> for sid and package_x.x-1sarge for sarge sound reasonable to you? > > It doesn't sound good to me. If you have the same source package, and the > only difference is that it must be compiled with the libs from stable instead > of the ones from unstable, I don't think it should be a different version. > However, maybe someone else has something sensible to say about it. Of course > the pool doesn't allow two binary packages of the same name, because they must > be in the same directory. There are more reasons for a different version number: It makes clear that some change has happened (compared to the binary package from unstable/testing), and possibly which. And it makes it easy to migrate back to the Debian version if you want. For example, if you provide backports, you should make sure that the version number is lower than the version number of the next Debian revision. This ensures that if the user decides to switch to testing/unstable, they'll get the newer version. Whether the version number should actually be *lower* than the version in Debian is a different question. For custom-built packages I would clearly say no - if it is higher, you can keep the Debian lines in your sources list, and will still keep the local packages. For backports, it should usually be lower to make upgrading easy. Regards, Frank >> And how do i have to report the different builds in the changelog? >> Is it an acceptable practise to add a changelog entry only for a build >> on a different distribution? > > In the official archive, this doesn't happen. But binary-only-NMUs do happen, and that is a very similar situation. I've never done one, so I don't know how you change the version - but probably you do it in the changelog. Then why not add a "recompiled for sarge" entry? I've seen that often for woody backports. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
