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

Re: Bug#437392: debhelper: subroutine "isnative" in Dh_Lib.pm is confused by NMU of native package

luk@debian.org wrote:
> Because it may be more important to be able to identify an NMU from the
> version number than to be able to identify a native package from the
> version number...

I don't see why it's important to be able to tell that from a version
number at all. It's also not the rationalle that lintian gives:

N:   A source NMU should have a Debian revision of '-x.x'. This is to
N:   prevent stealing version numbers from the maintainer (and the -x.x.x
N:   version numbers are reserved for binary-only NMU's).

But there are plenty of other ways to avoid "stealing" native version
numbers. There are also plenty of ways to make it clear that a native
version number has been NMUed, without breaking the native if ! /-/ check.

> > The developer's reference chose to ignore or change a longstanding practice
> > of never using debian revision numbers in native packages. Changing this
> > breaks software that has relied on this practice for ten or more years.
> > Not just debhelper, but debstd and cdbs, and who knows what else.
> How does it break them?

As documented in #437392, particularly, files whose location differs between
native and non-native packages are renamed when the package is NMUed.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: