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

Re: Why Katie thinks it's an NMU?

Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 01:29:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> writes:
> > > 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
> > > tricky.
> > > 
> > > --Jeroen
> > 
> > How does that help if you upload "foobar 1.2-3.4.5" without any
> > source? No dsc file to check.
> *sigh*, obviously, I meant .deb here.
> For example, cpp_3.3.3-2_i386.deb contains the header:
>  Source: gcc-defaults (1.14)
> Any .deb indicates its source, including binary-only NMU's, so no
> version number fiddling is needed to find the source (which would be
> impossible too, is 1.2-0.0.1 a binary NMU of 1.2, or of 1.2-0? Though
> nonstandard, the latter isn't forbidden)
> --Jeroen

Can you tell dpkg-buildpackage that something is a binary only NMU
without setting the version right? Didn't see it in the manpage.

I consider 1.2-0 forbidden. 1.2-0 would not be newer than a 1.2-0.0.1
binary only NMU that might be already uploaded or will be uploaded to
stable or testing (or even sid given some timeskew).

If sourcerer finds some more users nonstandard versions will be a
bigger problem. Sourcerer can recompile packages (a selective list of
all packages installed) from source for a local repository in a way
thats transparently integrated into apt. I follow the standard and use
1.2-0.0.0.sourcerer for localy compiled packages. That way any
standard conform next version will still be higher no matter if its a
maintainer upload, source or binary NMU.

I guess I should better add a sanity check in sourcerer to catch any
such misversioning.


Reply to: