On Sun, 04 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's the question: should we say flat-out that both packages must
> either be architecture-dependent or architecture-independent and
> then say that the dependency must use (= <version>), or should we
> allow what I was trying to allow above and then document, such as in
> a footnote, the technique of depending on (>= <version>), (<<
> <version>+b99)? The latter, as mentioned, may hide binNMU changelog
> entries.
The changelog really documents the changes in the versions of the
source package, not changes in the binary package. Since a binary
rebuild doesn't involve any changes to the source package, it should
be ok to link to the same changelog. In all such cases, you should
have an exact dependency on the source version of the architecture
independent package, which needs to be the same as its binary version.
(In the case of an architecture dependent package, it should be the
binary version, of course.)
Don Armstrong
--
Life would be way easier
if I were easier.
-- a softer world #473
http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=473
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100706014024.gv27...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
