Re: Mysterious NMU (Bug #423455)
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > 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?
Yes but this is a bit tricky to auto-generate and in many cases the
stricter dependency doesn't bring much (ie packages get upgraded at the
same time since they are generated from the same source and made available
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :