Re: binary NMUs and version numbers
Scott James Remnant <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 08:58 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Andreas Barth wrote:
>> > One idea was to use for binary-only NMU as 1.2-3b1.
>> Actually, it was 1.2-3+b1, iirc. Maybe I missed some later discussion.
> Yes, it was +b1 ... for the following reason:
>> > This has the advantage
>> > that current dpkg can handle it, and also that britney doesn't get confused
>> > any more. However, it doesn't solve the second issue.
>> Changing the security update policy to call packages "1.2-3+sec-woody1"
>> as well would solve it though.
> The theory for using '+' was that it sorts *lower* than '.', so we could
> use 1.2-3.woody.1 or similar. The reason we don't use that form today,
> iirc, is that it confuses the current "is it a Bin-NMU?" check.
> Have you ever, ever felt like this?
> Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
If dpkg-buildpackage would have a switch (or brains) for "build
recompile binary only NMU" that would set the "Source: foo (1.2-3)"
entry correctly to the non NMUed version would that suffice for katie
to see the right source is already there and for britney to do testing
I guess katie would already work but britney might need some logic to
detect that a binary package from one source has different versions on
different archs and that that is ok.
PS: dpkg-buildpackage could even ask for a reason and automatically
add the changelog entry (or prepare the changelog and fork an editor).