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

Re: Mysterious NMU (Bug #423455)

Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> writes:

> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:24:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 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?
> Regards,
> -Roberto

(>= version) and (<< next-version).

The problem is knowing next-version. 1.0.1-2 is not the next
version. For example a NMU of 1.0.1-1.1 is less. Also 1.0.1-1lenny1
(security update for lenny) is less than 1.0.1-2. There could also be
an 1.0.1-2~rc1, again less than 1.0.1-2.

And now for something really ugly:

% dpkg --compare-versions "1.0.1-1lenny1" "<<" "1.0.1-1+b1" && echo yes

So a security upload of the package has a smaller version than a
binNMU upload. At that point you are pretty much screwed.

One way around the problem is

Package: foo-any
Provides: foo-any-source-version

Package: foo-all
Depends: foo-any-source-version


Reply to: