Jakub Wilk <[email protected]> writes: > * Russ Allbery <[email protected]>, 2010-07-04, 09:53: >>+ <item> >>+ The packages are the same version (both source and Debian >>+ revision) with the possible exception of binary-only >>+ rebuilds of one of the packages, since otherwise >>+ the <file>changelog.Debian.gz</file> in one of the two >>+ packages would not be the changelog for the latest version. >>+ This requires the dependency on the other package be tightly >>+ versioned. >>+ </item>
> I think this part needs a clarification, that is is not OK to link from an > arch-dependent package to an arch:all one. See e.g. bug #524191. 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. I'm good either way and am leaning a bit towards the former, but that would definitely make some packages in Debian buggy. (Although they're arguably already buggy due to the behavior with changelog files.) -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
