On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:56:30PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > Your case is probably better handled with a simple higher-or-equal > > > dependency. > > > > Maybe I misunderstand, but wouldn't something like (>= 1.0.1-1) and (<< > > 1.0.1-2) be more correct? That way the package is still binNMU safe and > > also safe from breaking if incompatibilities are introduced in the next > > source upload? > > Yes but this is a bit tricky to auto-generate and in many cases the > stricter dependency doesn't bring much (ie packages get upgraded at the > same time since they are generated from the same source and made available > together). > Yes, but that assumes that the user does a dist-upgrade or an upgrade of all packages together. IMHO, that is not a safe assumption.
Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
