Fabio Pedretti wrote: > Citando Max Bowsher <maxb@xxxxxxx>: > >>> That would be >>> useful to easily backport packages from the development version to the >>> stable versions. >> >> *Please* do not use this for backporting packages. >> >> If you do copy source into a previous series, then the result will be >> packages built in the previous series environment but which have the >> same version number as the official packages. >> >> As a result, when someone installs the 'backported' packages and then >> later upgrades to the Ubuntu release they were backported from, those >> packages will *not* get upgraded, potentially leading to all kinds of >> bizarre and really difficult to debug problems. >> >> This is why any backport should always use a ~foo version suffix. > > Maybe a little off topic here, but doesn't this problem also happens > with standard Ubuntu packages that don't get an update between version? > > Take a look for example at torcs packages: same version in intrepid and > jaunty. Shouldn't the jaunty package be recompiled with jaunty's > compiler and libraries and have a different version? I am sure that this > package was not replaced during upgrade from intrepid to jaunty because > I modified some xml files of it and after the upgrade the files were the > same I had before. > > Maybe a recompile is only triggered manually when there is some > incompatible changes in the used libraries? Precisely. The key difference here is that *when* (for example) Intrepid and Jaunty have the same version of a package, this means they have *exactly the same* binary packages. This is not true if you rebuild the source without the same version number. Basically, never ever create two different things with the same name and version, because that way lies madness :-) Max.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)