On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 04:39:39PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Should we tighten this to be a dependency on the same version? Otherwise > > it would be possible to have the two packages coming from different > > versions of the source package where the license changed in between, > > with wrong information in the copyright file for the package that has a > > symlink. Not sure if this hypothetical case is worth the trouble.
> My inclination is to say no, since there are various tricky problems with
> requiring the dependency be on the same version when one package is arch:
> any and one package is arch: all. There's also been push-back in
> debian-devel against a Lintian tag requiring that the dependency be on the
> same version, so there's some evidence that we don't have consensus for
> requiring that.
If one package is arch: any and one package is arch: all, won't the lintian
check fail anyway in the event of a -B build (as happens on all the
autobuilders), due to the arch: all package being unavailable? Would this
translate to an archive auto-reject?
(I accept that it may not be the consensus, but at least in the case of
arch:any -> arch:all dependencies within a source package, it's always safe
and appropriate to use (= ${source:Version}) in the dependency; that
wouldn't be the /same/ version, but it's not guaranteed that all binary
package from a given source package have the same binary version number,
either - what matters is the "=" here.)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
