Re: binNMU safe and ${binary:Version} or ${source:Version}
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 17:14, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 12.09.2006, 15:56 +0200 schrieb Daniel Leidert:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I currently try to understand, what I need to do to make my packages
> > binNMU-safe (I package several libraries). For a package I want to put
> > into Debian soon, I'm now trying to make it binNMU-safe. But what's
> > behind this? I tried to find documentation that explains the phrase (I
> > understand, wthat an binNMU is, but not, what binNMU exactly means for a
> > package). But I didn't find anything. I e.g. saw the bug-report against
> > xchat. But I don't understand, when I should use ${binary:Version}
> > (gnome-vfs2) or ${source:Version} (suggested in the bug-report). So
> > where can I find documentation about this?
>
> Hmm. I think, I now understand it a bit better (I read the
> EvolutionPackagingNotes in the Debian Wiki). But Im still wondering,
> where I can find the documentation.
Ok, you have a Source: packagename, which declares two (or more) Package:
packagenames which are Architecture: all and Architecture: any, and you need
to declare a strict versioned dependency between them, then when a binNMU is
done, that means to be rebuilt the Architecture: any parts of the source
package, but not Architecture: all, since that is how the autobuilders do it,
you endup with a trailing +b1 (or 2, 3) next to the the debian revision
number (for instance 4:3.5.3-1+b1) for the Architecture: any part, but the
Architecture: all part still strict-version-depends on the Architecture: any
part without that trailing +b1 (4:3.5.3-1), but there is no such a package
for that architecture for which the binNMU was done.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: