Re: Binary-only uploads cause dangling 'Source:' reference in .deb's (Was: Re: Why Katie thinks it's an NMU?)
Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 07:09:51PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > Pro the non-changelog thing is, that one can order a buildd to recompile
> > with correct version number, while currently manual changelog editing is
> > needed.
> Actually, sbuild already has a --make-binNMU switch which does the
> changelog editing automatically.
> > > You really do have to update the changelog, IMHO; if nothing else
> > > something somewhere needs to say why you're making the binNMU.
> > In the .changes, dpkg-buildpackage --rebuild=n would force you to also
> > supply a text for 'Changes:'? I don't really think it needs to be in the
> > changelog, as it was merely a fix for a botched build.
> Builds can be botched for all kinds of reasons, and it is interesting to
> users to see why their installed package is being upgraded (think
Please keep it in the Changelog so list-changes will show the
reason. Thats important to some users.
> > Anyway, IMHO whichever way is chosen doesn't matter much, I think the
> > most important thing is that either is implemented. There are currently
> > less than 94 binary NMU's in the archive across all archs.
> > It deals with about 10 source packages I think, plus quite some on
> > s390 (which has by far the most binary NMU's). I think it's achievable,
> > if this dpkg bug is fixed, to have sarge without dangling Source:
> > references.
> I think it might be getting a bit late for that kind of change to dpkg,
> and certainly going through all the binNMUs and repeating them doesn't
> appeal (remember that neither of us has access to all the
> architectures). Also I just don't think this is particularly urgent.
Dpkg-dev could be fixed to do the same version checks katie does and
set the Source version in the control and changes files respectively.
This could coexsist with the added changelog entry.
As for recompiling, is there any tool used by the user that would
care? "apt-get source" seems to work fine without it. But future
uploads could do it right and set the Source line.