Re: Re: [TRANSLATE] web/xml/packaging packaging.en.xml,1.46,1.48

Le 7 sept. 2004, à 21:17, Daniel E. Macks a écrit :

> Michèle Garoche <[email protected]> said:
>> Le 7 sept. 2004, =E0 14:02, Daniel Macks a =E9crit :
>>
>>> packaging manual additions:
>>>
>>>   * Revision field: add notes about Revision field incrementing
>>>
>>>  +<p>
>>> +  This
>>> +  includes changing the <code>Depends</code> or other package lists,
>>> +  with the exception of<code>BuildDepends</code>, and adding,
>>> +  removing, or renaming splitoff packages or shifting files among
>>> +  them.
>>
>> Could it be rephrased so that in case of building correctly a package,
>> but the built is not correct (i.e. missing a crucial builddepends), it
>> will be clear that the revision number should be increased when the
>> BuildDepends field changes.
>
> Good point. How about removing "with the exception of BuildDepends",
> and adding a sentence: "The only exception is when the change fixes a
> problem that prevented the package from compiling at all."?
Well, why not, but it is much more that you intended. From my part, I 
think this is a better solution, since it ensures a significant change 
in the info file is always taken into account. Though I wonder how a 
package that does not compile at all could go into the repository. And 
if it cannot, what "does not compile at all" means? If it is a user's 
complaint, it has to be investigated whether the problem resides on the 
user's system (some special installation for example) in which case 
that's more a faq's problem, or it is inherent to the package in which 
case the info file should be changed as well as the revision number, 
since it's likely that the problem occurs more than one time, even if 
no other user complaints.

And there are also the changes in Install-PostInst-Rm... scripts. But 
here I'm not sure how changes are handled if the revision number is not 
incremented.

Michèle
<http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>