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. Cheers -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
