Bug#556015: Clarify requirements for copyright file
Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> writes:
> * Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, 2010-07-07, 09:12:
>>+ <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 a dependency that ensures exactly the right
>>+ version of the other package be installed. For a dependency
>>+ between two binary-dependent packages, use:
>>+ <example>
>>+Depends: foo (= ${binary:Version})
>>+ </example>
>>+ For a dependency between two architecture-independent
>>+ packages or from an architecture-dependent package to an
>>+ architecture-independent package, use:
>>+ <example>
>>+Depends: foo (= ${source:Version})
>>+ </example>
>>+ Putting the symlink in an architecture-independent package
>>+ and the documentation directory in an architecture-dependent
>>+ package should be avoided if the documentation can be moved
>>+ to an architecture-independent package instead, but if
>>+ required, a dependency similar to:
>>+ <example>
>>+Depends: foo (>= ${source:Version}), foo (<< ${source:Version}+b99)
>>+ </example>
>>+ can be used.
>>+ </item>
> This encourages arch:any -> arch:all symlinks, which is exactly what I
> wanted to be disallowed.
Why? Because of the binNMU changelog entry?
Don and I talked about that some earlier in the bug log and neither of us
thought that losing that information was horribly important. But I don't
feel strongly about it; if we want to ban all doc symlinks except for
any:any and all:all, we can do that, and that would prevent the
information loss. Whether or not those packages are currently buggy
depends on how tightly one wants to interpret the requirements around
changelog files.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: