Re: Mysterious NMU (Bug #423455)
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 03:49:07PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> 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.
A rule that works pretty good:
>= ${source:Version} and <= ${source:Version}.1~
Reply to: