Re: binary package version numbers?
On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 11, 1999 at 02:20:07PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > We don't have a scheme which doesn't force other arches to
> > rebuild beacuse of another arch build's mistake, right?
> I think that we use -2.0.1 , meaning "a recompile of -2". I've seen
> that quite often, don't know how official it is.
I think that this is pretty much equivalent to the following section from
the Debian Developer's Reference:
8.2 Guidelines for Porter Uploads
If the package builds out of the box for the architecture to be ported
to, you are in luck and your job is easy. This section applies to that
case; it describes how to build and upload your binary NMU so that it
is properly installed into the archive. If you do have to patch the
package in order to get it to compile for the other architecture, you
are actually doing a source NMU, so consult How to do a source NMU,
Section 7.4 instead.
In a binary NMU, no real changes are being made to the source. You do
not need to touch any of the files in the source package. This
Sometimes you need to recompile a packages against other packages
which have been updated, such as libraries. You do have to bump the
version number in this case, so that the upgrade system can function
properly. Even so, these are considered binary-only NMUs -- there is
no need in this case for all architectures to recompile. You should
set the version number as in the case of NMU versioning, but add a
``.0.'' before the the NMU version. For instance, a recompile-only NMU
of the source package ``foo_1.3-1'' would be numbered
The way to invoke dpkg-buildpackage is as dpkg-buildpackage -B
-mporter-email. Of course, set porter-email to your email address.
This will do a binary-only build of only the architecture-dependant
portions of the package, using the `binary-arch' target in
firstname.lastname@example.org | A word to the wise is...
http://www.debian.org | often enough to start an argument. (fortune)