[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Where did Bacula 1.38.11-7+b1 come from?

On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 19:13:09 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Guillem Jover:
> > 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.
> Yeah, but this only helps if you've got a source version to compare
> to.  You could derive that from a binary version if you've got the
> corresponding Package entry, but this information might not be
> available anymore when you need it.

Sorry if I was unclear, but this field with that information is present
in the binary packages and then exposed through the Packages file. It's
even on dpkg's status file.

> Furthermore, it's not particularly useful to address the
> inconsistencies added by binNMUs when there are other problems.  Some
> binary packages have different version numbering schemes on different
> architectures, or they are built from different source packages.

The only current problem I see from the binNMU implementation in dpkg
is that packages that have a different source version than the one for
the binary packages will not receive a proper binNMU version as those
package generate the version manually, neither the binary:Version will
be correct, as we'd have to introduce a binary:<binpkg>:Version or
similar to be able to deal with those. Given the small amount of
packages doing this I decided to implement something that'd work for
almost all packages except for the few odd cases, that would be
problematic anyway now. This could be fixed in the future if there's
a pressing need.


Reply to: