Re: Where did Bacula 1.38.11-7+b1 come from?
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:57:52PM -0600, John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:31:46PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Thursday 22 February 2007 19:26, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > 1. Add a Build-dependency on dpkg-dev (>=1.13.19)
> > > 2. For all in bacula-foo packages that are arch:all replace any
> > > occurence of
> > > Depends: bacula-foo (= ${Source-Version})
> > > with Depends: bacula-foo (= ${source:Version})
> > > 3. (optional, but clarify things) For all in bacula-foo packages that
> > > are arch:any replace any occurence of
> > > Depends: bacula-foo (= ${Binary-Version})
> >
> > Something is missing here... I suspect:
> > | with Depends: bacula-foo (= ${binary:Version})
> >
> > ... but feel free to correct me.
>
> I think I am understanding what is going on here, but I think it is
> incomplete.
>
> There are these situations in bacula:
>
> 1) Arch all deps on arch all with the same version
> 2) Arch any deps on arch all with the same version
> 3) Arch all deps on arch any with the same version
>
> I think that the above handle cases 1 and 2, but not case 3. Actually I
> don't think it's possible to make case 3 binNMU-safe, or am I missing
> something?
Case 3 is handled by the dependency rul I gave in another subthread.
Mike
Reply to: