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

Re: binNMU safe and ${binary:Version} or ${source:Version}

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 07:46:37PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> George Danchev wrote:
> > Ok, you have a Source: packagename, which declares two (or more) Package: 
> > packagenames which are Architecture: all and Architecture: any, and you need 
> > to declare a strict versioned dependency between them,

> AFAICT, that's the key - am I right in thinking that if the arch:all
> doesn't need to depend strictly on any of the arch:any that there is no
> problem?

> > then when a binNMU is 
> > done, that means to be rebuilt the Architecture: any parts of the source 
> > package, but not Architecture: all, since that is how the autobuilders do it, 
> > you endup with a trailing +b1 (or 2, 3) next to the the debian revision 
> > number (for instance 4:3.5.3-1+b1) for the Architecture: any part, but the 
> > Architecture: all part still strict-version-depends on the Architecture: any 
> > part without that trailing +b1 (4:3.5.3-1), but there is no such a package 
> > for that architecture for which the binNMU was done.

> Let's see if I've got that right: One source package, 5 arch:any, 1
> arch:all.

> If that arch:all package does *not* depend strictly on any of the
> binaries (a simple -doc package), is (= ${Source-Version}) still a
> problem in the dependencies between the arch:any binary packages themselves?

> e.g. libfoo-dev depends on libfoo (= ${Source-Version})
> libfoobar depends on libfoo (= ${Source-Version})

No, it's not a problem, it's just confusing due to the naming of this
variable "Source-Version", and I would encourage you to use the new
binary:Version variable instead.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: