On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Dan <danmbox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Launchpad checks if the binary version is 'publishable' anything else >> can't be accurately checked, unfortunately. >> Note that 'installable' and 'fully-functional' are also different concepts. > > I meant "will be able to satisfy binary dependencies and install > cleanly". I'm not sure if that would be "publishable" or > "installable". Checking if binary dependencies can be satisfied in the archive domain (PRIMARY + PPA), can be tricky. I'm not sure we want to go down in this track full of race-conditions. We don't even do such checks for ubuntu packages. >> It's not only about the archive topology, but mainly for packaging consistency. >> If foo-bin works fine for gutsy and hardy why would you have to >> rebuild it and in case it doesn't work as expected in a later series >> the issue should be fixed and documented as a new version of the > > It would be useful to have a different binary for Hardy (even when the > Gutsy binary works) in the cases when Hardy provides updated libraries > that the package uses. Say libfoo1 is available both in Gutsy and > Hardy, but Hardy also provides libfoo2. The source package may not > care (it requires either libfoo1 | libfoo2). But the Gutsy .deb cannot > depend on libfoo2 (only libfoo1 is available on Gutsy), while the > Hardy .deb can. So two .deb's would be very beneficial. "Build-depends: libfoo1-dev | libfoo2-dev" would work just fine and libfoo2 should be a shared-lib and replace libfoo1 automatically in hardy. I can't clearly see the benefit of having bin-NMUs, specially compared with all the confusion it might cause. >> package. So the evolution goes on, step by step. > > How would this work? Would I need to maintain three separate source > packages (one for Debian unstable, one for Hardy and one for Gutsy)? > Even though the exact same source package would build fine on all > distros and create different .deb's with different functionality (see > point above)? The rule is actually can be as simple as: When you have to change either packaging data or the upstream source itself to make it work in a specific series, you need to create, upload and build another source version. The opposite is not always true, when the binary from a previous series installs fine in all other newer series you don't need to rebuild the source, copying source & binaries will be okay, unless there is a problem somewhere else, like pathological ABI changes that are either well known and documented or went in unnoticed :(. I'm sure MOTU guys will be happy to help you with specific issues about your packages, to minimize the number of packages while keeping them consistent across multiple ubuntu series. [] -- Celso Providelo <celso.providelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> IRC: cprov, Jabber: cprov@xxxxxxxxxx, Skype: cprovidelo 1024D/681B6469 C858 2652 1A6E F6A6 037B B3F7 9FF2 583E 681B 6469
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)