Le 15/01/2011 18:22, Steve Langasek a écrit :
[...] and require us to use a hackish (>= ), (<< )
construction for all arch:any -> arch:all dependencies just as we already
have to do for arch:all -> arch:any dependencies.
This is as "wrong" as adding artificial versioned build-dependencies, as
is often the case when you are "simulating" a binNMU with a sourceful
upload in the middle of a transition.
Building "manually" the binNMUed arch:all package at the right time, and
uploading it would achieve a better result, IMHO. And then, all the
arch:any packages (if any) can be binNMUed on the buildds as usual, with
explicit dep-waits, without touching the source package.
One way to handle the substvar issue (which would be more correct to me)
is to add the possibility to specify a version constraint modulo binNMU.
So that Julien's example of [1] would look like:
Package: foo
Architecture: all
Package: bar
Architecture: any
Depends: foo (~= ${source:Version})
(if we choose ~= to denote version equality modulo binNMU). In terms of
implementation, it is conceptually similar to depending on a virtual
package that is provided by the corresponding binary with the same
source version.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/01/msg00480.html
Cheers,
--
Stéphane
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d78f2f5.1000...@debian.org
