Re: binNMUs and versions
* Philipp Kern (pkern@debian.org) [100612 18:56]:
> Kurt,
>
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 06:50:47PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > What we see in that version field is a faked version anyway. It's not
> > > about the binary version, it's either source version or
> > > concat(source version, '+b', binNMU version).
> > Right, and we probably don't properly handle the case where a
> > source versions generates differerent binary versions then
> > the source version, not taking binNMUs into account, and then
> > doing a binNMU of that. But those packages probably don't support
> > binNMUs either.
>
> at least quinn-diff did. There's a Source field in the binary stanza.
The current script does as well.
> But right, if the binary packages fail at producing the proper versions
> we can't help that. But that's sbuild / package building interaction.
Of course.
> > But it's still important that we know what the source version is,
> > we can't assume that a "+bX" binary version is actually a binNMU.
> We can, at the source level. I suppose the day someone uploads a source
> version ending on "+bX" the hell will break lose anyway. (And it will
> get ugly with "+b1+bX" on binNMUs, so let's forget about that.
Actually, perhaps we should transition on using something else as real
"binary epoch". But well, until that day we'll have a lots of
shortcomings if someone uploads +b[0-9]+-binaries.
Andi
Reply to: