On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:46:04AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Indeed, and the version of the metapackages doesn't include an explicit > > reference to the ABI. IMO it should, then we could do: > > Depends: linux-image-2.6-686 (>= 2.6.21-1), linux-image-2.6-686 (<< > > 2.6.21-2) > > 2.6.21-1 <= 2.6.21-1-1 <= 2.6.21-2? I doubt it.
The dash induces the comparison wrong... but that can be solved by introducing explicitely the debian revision in all versions numbers. 2.6.21-1-0 <= 2.6.21-1-1 <= 2.6.21-2-0 > And the linux-2.6 version also don't describe the abi. What do you mean? linux-latest-2.6 doesn't include the ABI in the version number currently, but that's easy to solve since you have to update that package anyway every time the ABI changes... > > Currently you have to lookup the changelog of linux-image-2.6-686 to know > > the ABI it corresponds to, which is somehow inconvenient. > > No, the depends clearly stats which abi this is. Right. > > BTW, the version numbers in the changelog doesn't correspond to the > > version numbers of the generated package. While this is allowed, its there > > a compelling reason to do so in this case? > > Otherwise the linux version would complete go away. Why can't you put the linux version in the changelog itself? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
