[ec2-beta] RFC: screenbin -- like pastebin, but for screen, using Ubuntu in Amazon EC2

Colin Watson cjwatson at ubuntu.com
Wed Jan 14 10:59:20 GMT 2009

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:32:41AM +0000, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 03:09:15PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 04:34:24PM -0600, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Mark Shuttleworth
> >>> <mark.shuttleworth at canonical.com> wrote:
> >>>> We really need a good way to make packages for multiple releases :-/
> >   
> >> While not yet automated, I think the approach that makes the most sense is
> >> to upload the build to the earliest release it builds on, and then
> >> package-copy them within the PPA to the newer releases.  This would mimic
> >> the way this happens "naturally" in the archive.

I very much agree with this; of the obvious ways to do this, I think it
would produce the least confusing results. Most times I've seen people
trying to put multiple releases in the changelog, it's because a build
for the earlier one will work perfectly well on the later ones.

> > Right - if you're doing a single upload, that's what has to happen anyway;
> > you can't let the same package get picked up by the buildds for multiple
> > releases, because then you would have multiple binary packages with the same
> > version numbers.
> Having a way to tell LP to do this for you, rather than having to fiddle
> around, would be nice.

This was filed on Soyuz a while back, and I made similar comments to the


(Note also Celso's reference in that bug to comments by Adam Conrad
outlining some of the problems with binary-only rebuilds; I had the same
things in mind when I made my comments on #235064 suggesting a
restriction that makes multi-release uploads implementable for many
sensible use cases while decoupling it from that minefield.)

Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson at ubuntu.com]

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list