George Danchev wrote: > Ok, you have a Source: packagename, which declares two (or more) Package: > packagenames which are Architecture: all and Architecture: any, and you need > to declare a strict versioned dependency between them,
AFAICT, that's the key - am I right in thinking that if the arch:all
doesn't need to depend strictly on any of the arch:any that there is no
problem?
> then when a binNMU is
> done, that means to be rebuilt the Architecture: any parts of the source
> package, but not Architecture: all, since that is how the autobuilders do it,
> you endup with a trailing +b1 (or 2, 3) next to the the debian revision
> number (for instance 4:3.5.3-1+b1) for the Architecture: any part, but the
> Architecture: all part still strict-version-depends on the Architecture: any
> part without that trailing +b1 (4:3.5.3-1), but there is no such a package
> for that architecture for which the binNMU was done.
>
Let's see if I've got that right: One source package, 5 arch:any, 1
arch:all.
If that arch:all package does *not* depend strictly on any of the
binaries (a simple -doc package), is (= ${Source-Version}) still a
problem in the dependencies between the arch:any binary packages themselves?
e.g. libfoo-dev depends on libfoo (= ${Source-Version})
libfoobar depends on libfoo (= ${Source-Version})
--
Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
