Re: Why Katie thinks it's an NMU?
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 05:09:09AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:
> >
> > > The version number has no effect at all whether katie considers
> > > something to be a NMU or not.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Andi
> >
> > Something in the archive scripts does care. Binary only NMUs are
> > recognised by having a tree part debian version (1.2-3.4.5) instead of
> > the normal one part (maintainer upload) or two part (source NMU). If
> > nothing would care a rebuild would be triggered on all archs not
> > uploaded.
>
> Err, why should katie do that based on the version number? That's very
> unlikely, katie can simply see whether the .changes file contains a
> source too, even more, katie doesn't care about buildd's, (iirc)
Only the initial upload contains a source, the buildd uploads and
manual port builds don't.
Katie ensures that the initial upload does in fact contain
source, or rather it checks if source for an upload are
available. Sources for a binary only recompile upload (1.2-3.4.5)
have to look for the non recompile version for source (1.2-3.4
diff/dsc, 1.2 orig.tar.gz or 1.2-3.4 tar.gz).
> quinn-diff does, and because of the nature of the upload (no new source
> attached), everything goes magically alright because there _is_ nothing
> to rebuild?
>
> Version numbering w.r.t. (Binary/Source) NMU's is a convention thing,
> mandated by policy. The archive scripts do not care other than for
> version ordering.
They do, see above.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: