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

Re: Mysterious NMU (Bug #423455)

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:56:30PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 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
> together).
Yes, but that assumes that the user does a dist-upgrade or an upgrade of
all packages together.  IMHO, that is not a safe assumption.



Roberto C. Sánchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: