Re: making more packages binary NMU safe
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:53:04PM -0600, Adam M. wrote:
>
>>Ken Bloom wrote:
>>
>>>I noticed that glabels is broken on i386 because it's not binary NMU
>>>safe, and someone did a binary NMU.
>
>
>>>After poking around a bit, I found
>>>http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2005/11/msg00000.html, which
>>>discussed a possible solution to this problem. Since then, we have
>>>changed the version number format for binary NMUs, so I wanted to submit
>>>a patch (based on the one mentioned previously) to allow the creation
>>>more binNMU safe packages.
>
>
>>Instead of doing blind substitutions like it is done currently, it is
>>possible to separate Arch:all from Arch:any|other|whatever in the
>>substitution script such that,
>
>
>>Source-Version => bin NMU version for binaries that are build
>>Source-Version => 'original' version for Arch:all binaries
>
>
> Which would mean the value of the ${Source-Version} substitution would have
> to change based on which *package name* preceded it in the control file --
> horrible, horrible kludge! No, the correct solution is to introduce two new
> variables and deprecate the old one, instead of further re-defining
> "Source-Version" in ways that have even less to do with the source version.
>
> And why is this on -devel instead of on -dpkg, anyway?
Because I didn't know where to send it so it wouldn't get lost. But now
that Michael Banck told me where to send it, I'll send it to
debian-dpkg@l.d.o
--Ken
--
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.
Reply to: