Re: Where did Bacula 1.38.11-7+b1 come from?
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 19:51:17 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Binary-only NMUs are a necessary evil. The implementation kind of
> sucks, but I'm not sure how a better approach would look like. It's
> not just the dependencies problem, it's also quite confusing that
> you've got a source package which builds different binary package
> versions on different architectures (but their are other ways to
> achieve that). For instance, this pretty much rules out precise
> tracking based on binary packages.
The resulting .changes will get a field like this:
Source: bacula (1.38.11-7)
which can be used to track back from which source this binary
originated. Or are you referring to something different?
regards,
guillem
Reply to: