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

Re: Why Katie thinks it's an NMU?

On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 11:53:43AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> 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.
> > 
> > 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,

I'm afraid you're wrong there; I have some binNMUed packages here and
they do *not* indicate the source version.

  $ dpkg -I liboo2c_1.5.9-3.0.1_powerpc.deb | grep Source
   Source: oo2c

I know of no non-heuristic way to find the exact source version
associated with a binary-only NMU.

> 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)

katie tries both of those possibilities.

Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: