Re: Why Katie thinks it's an NMU?
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 03:54:49PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:38:54AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > > 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 care a little bit, actually. There's a check for every
> > binary-only upload whether there's corresponding source in the archive.
> > For binary-only NMUs as opposed to normal porting uploads, they need to
> > know how to fiddle the version number to look for the source, so -1.0.1
> > becomes -1 and -1.1.1 becomes -1.1.
> In a .dsc, there is a 'Source:' entry (only if source pkg != bin pkg,
> and/or source versionnr != bin versionnr), which points to the source.
> So no need to fiddle with the version number, which would be really
How does that help if you upload "foobar 1.2-3.4.5" without any
source? No dsc file to check.