Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:27:06AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> > No, it's a bug in dpkg-dev, which should know how to set
>> > ${Source-Version} correctly for binNMUs.
I'm not clear which file actually puts this substitution in substvars; I
tried to track it down but couldn't find it. Clearly whatever file does
that should provide two variables (Source-Version and Binary-Version are
indeed better names than I was thinking of). If I found the file, I'd
write and submit a patch.
>> It can't really know, can it? If I have a control file with
>
>> Package: foo
>> Architecture: any
>
>> Package: foo-data-extra
>> Architecture: all
>
>> Package: foo-plugins
>> Architecture: any
>> Depends: foo (=${Source-Version}), foo-data-extra (=${Source-Version})
>
>> then a binNMU ought to have foo-plugins depend on the binNMU'ed
>> version of foo, but on the common version of foo-data-extra.
>> If dpkg-gencontrol were to figure out that, it would need to parse a
>> lot of data that it currently doesn't. And even if it did it
>> correctly, the resulting behavior would be confusing.
>
>> IMO it would be better to split ${Source-Version} into two substvars,
>> one of which includes binNMU suffixes and one of which doesn't.
>
> Yes; sorry, I thought it was self-evident that Source-Version ought to
> refer to the *source* version, and that a new variable name is called for
> where the binary version is needed.
Right. Hmm.
--
ksig --random|
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
