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

Re: Correct way to do binary-only NMU?

On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:44:24PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * "Christian T. Steigies" 
> | On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 02:30:13PM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
> | > Hi,
> | > 
> | > how do you invoke dpkg-buildpackage for a binary-only NMU? In section
> | > 8.2 "Guidelines for Porter Uploads", the Developer's Reference says:
> | > 
> | >     In a binary NMU, no real changes are being made to the source. You
> | >     do not need to touch any of the files in the source package. This
> | >     includes debian/changelog.
> |
> | debian/changelog is not in source of the package. Is that really written in
> | the developers reference (too lazy to check that now)?
> Of course.  If you change the source, you need to bump the version
You mean of course, yes?
> number.  That is a _source_ NMU, since we need to able to build the
> packages from the source we have around.
> A binary NMU should not touch the source.  Remember - a buildd
> building and uploading is, technically, doing an NMU.
When I rebuild a package to fix dependency problems (recent example, aview
in potato/m68k depended on a library which was not in potato, so I rebuilt
aview with the potato libraries, changed nothing in the source, only bumped
up the version number, with sbuild, which adds a changelog entry to say just
this: no source changes) that is not ok in your eyes?

Technically you may be right, but practically we (well, at least I) do it
like this, just to get things working. Its not necessary that all arches
rebuild hundreds of packages, only because m68k only recently switched to
glibc2.2. And I think thats exactly the reason for the NMU version
numbering. After all, we just recompile the package with a new libc library
installed. Maybe the Developers reference should be clarified, or will I be
expelled from the project now?


Reply to: