Hi, On 09/06/17 13:11, Narcis Garcia wrote: > El 09/06/17 a les 14:01, James Cowgill ha escrit: >> Hi, >> >> On 09/06/17 12:54, Narcis Garcia wrote: >>> Hello, I'm trying to build a package that depends on another one >>> (iputils-ping), but the other's version in Debian is marked with a >>> notation I don't know: >>> 3:20161105-1 >>> >>> - Which is this software's version? 3? >> >> This is documented in debian-policy: >> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version >> >> The upstream version is "20161105". The epoch is "3" and is used to >> change the version scheme at a later date. >> >>> - What is the best formula for "control" file in my new package, having >>> present that any version is useful for me since 3:20020927 from >>> Debian-Sarge or older if there was? >>> >>> Depends: iputils-ping (>= 3) >>> Depends: iputils-ping (>= 20020927) >>> Depends: iputils-ping (>= 3:20020927) >> >> The last one is the only one which will do what you want. However, it's >> not worth it to specify dependency versions which only matter for >> prehistoric Debian releases, so the best thing to do would just be: >> >> Depends: iputils-ping >> >> Thanks, >> James > > Okay, I didn't want that this lintian error affected Depends and/or > Recommends too: > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version.html iputils-ping is not a build-essential package so that error doesn't apply here. James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature