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

Bug#556015: Clarify requirements for copyright file

Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> writes:
> * Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, 2010-07-04, 09:53:
>>+	    <item>
>>+	      The packages are the same version (both source and Debian
>>+	      revision) with the possible exception of binary-only
>>+	      rebuilds of one of the packages, since otherwise
>>+	      the <file>changelog.Debian.gz</file> in one of the two
>>+	      packages would not be the changelog for the latest version.
>>+	      This requires the dependency on the other package be tightly
>>+	      versioned.
>>+	    </item>

> I think this part needs a clarification, that is is not OK to link from an
> arch-dependent package to an arch:all one. See e.g. bug #524191.

Here's the question: should we say flat-out that both packages must either
be architecture-dependent or architecture-independent and then say that
the dependency must use (= <version>), or should we allow what I was
trying to allow above and then document, such as in a footnote, the
technique of depending on (>= <version>), (<< <version>+b99)?  The latter,
as mentioned, may hide binNMU changelog entries.

I'm good either way and am leaning a bit towards the former, but that
would definitely make some packages in Debian buggy.  (Although they're
arguably already buggy due to the behavior with changelog files.)

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: