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

Re: Mysterious NMU (Bug #423455)

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:24:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > >                     Should be ${source:Version}. pure-ftpd-common is 
> > > >                     arch:all.
> > > 
> > > I changed that and uploaded new packages. Thanks for you quick help!
> > 
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=422717
> > 
> > As you can see, it does not help: proftpd-ldap is (was starting from
> > next upload, thanks God) an all-type fake package with a ${source:Version}
> > dependency in place. That strict dep was probably supefluous in the upgrading
> > path for etch, but that's another aspect...
> Your case is different. Arch: all can't depend on arch: any with a
> equal-versioned dependency since they are not regenerated during a bin-NMU.
> However the example above was the contrary, an arch: any package depending
> on an arch: all. And Dato was right.
> Your case is probably better handled with a simple higher-or-equal dependency.
Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't something like (>= 1.0.1-1) and (<<
1.0.1-2) be more correct?  That way the package is still binNMU safe and
also safe from breaking if incompatibilities are introduced in the next
source upload?



Roberto C. Sánchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: