On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > It could be a source of subtle bugs if this leads to having
> > libfoo:i386 (1.0) + libfoo:amd64 (2.0) + libfoo-data:all (2.0)
> >
> > But then the proper answer is for the maintainer to put
> > a tight dependency “Depends: libfoo-data (= ${source:Version})”.
>
> Err, that's heavily frowned because it breaks binNMUs if libfoo-data is
> arch:all, so we must decide on what the best way to deal with it is, and
> update best practice and policy accordingly.
Yikes, never mind. ${source:version} exists exactly to avoid the above
problem. Sorry about this.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
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/20120211115325.gb...@khazad-dum.debian.net
