Florian Weimer writes (Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package
name conflicts):
There's also the related issue that some binary packages have different
source packages on different architectures (and different versioning
schemes). There's no actual conflict, but it's making bug
* Lucas Nussbaum:
It might be a good idea to forbid name conflicts, since some tools don't
consider that they are totally different namespaces.
There's also the related issue that some binary packages have different
source packages on different architectures (and different versioning
schemes).
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007, Ian Jackson wrote:
To make the existing interface to bugs.debian.org unambiguous the
following rule is needed:
If there are a source package and a binary package with the same
name then
(a) that binary package must be generated from the
identically-named
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 04:49:28PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Manoj Srivastava writes (Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package
name conflicts):
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Some source packages generate binary packages using
Manoj Srivastava writes (Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package
name conflicts):
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
another source package. For example, see the 'qd
Feb 2007 22:21:58 +
Subject: Re: Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package name conflicts
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:57:19PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 19/01/07 at 12:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03
: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:52:25 +
Subject: Re: Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package name conflicts
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:47:41PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Reading the source sbuild is prepared to parse multiple returns from
apt-cache
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:47:41PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Reading the source sbuild is prepared to parse multiple returns from
apt-cache just fine. But it ignores the package name and only uses the
version to keep them apart.
So a case that would screw up sbuild would have to
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 01:57:19PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 19/01/07 at 12:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:12:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In the initial report you mentioned that sbuild has a
clone 400112 -1
reassign -1 sbuild
retitle -1 sbuild cannot find source in some cases
severity -1 important
thanks
On 19/01/07 at 12:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:12:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In the
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With this, apt fails:
$ apt-cache showsrc qd
Package: qd
Binary: libqd2c2a, libqd-dev
Version: 2.1.200-1
[...]
Package: kfolding
Binary: kfolding, qd
Version: 1.0.0-rc2-5
As you can see there are
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:12:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In the initial report you mentioned that sbuild has a problem with
confusing names like this. Afaik sbuild solely works on source package
name and version and that is always unique.
On 18/01/07 at 18:56 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:12:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In the initial report you mentioned that sbuild has a problem with
confusing names like this. Afaik sbuild solely works on source package
name and version and that is
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With this, apt fails:
$ apt-cache showsrc qd
Package: qd
Binary: libqd2c2a, libqd-dev
Version: 2.1.200-1
[...]
Package: kfolding
Binary: kfolding, qd
Version: 1.0.0-rc2-5
As you can see there are two sources that could be what you mean.
Do you
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:12:12PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
In the initial report you mentioned that sbuild has a problem with
confusing names like this. Afaik sbuild solely works on source package
name and version and that is always unique. Where do you get a
conflict?
It uses
Manoj Srivastava writes (Bug#400112: [PROPOSAL] forbid source/binary package
name conflicts):
Hi,
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Some tools don't like it at all (e.g sbuild), causing confusing
behaviour, based on the order of entries
Hi,
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package,
and the 'qd' binary package generated by the kfolding source package
(in
On 14/01/07 at 14:28 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:45:18 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package,
and the 'qd' binary
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package, and
the 'qd' binary package generated by the kfolding source package (in
contrib).
Some tools
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 10:45:18PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package, and
20 matches
Mail list logo
