On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 06:02:03PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:17:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:51:36PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > I'd rather see the binNMU version in the installed_version field - after > > > > all, for that architecture, that is the version that is installed. When > > > > filing a binNMU it is confusing to first see it go from 1.0-1 > > > > (Installed) to 1.0-1+b1 (Needs-Build) to 1.0-1+b1 (Built) to 1.0-1 > > > > (Installed). I'd expect it to stay at 1.0-1+b1 (Installed), if you know > > > > what I mean. > > > Eh, I need to translate myself I assume: > > > "I would tend to put the version number including the binary epoch > > > (e.g. 1.2.3+b1) in all fields, ...". > > I'm not sure how you'll get that to work, because you wouldn't > > know what the source version is anymore? > > What we see in that version field is a faked version anyway. It's not > about the binary version, it's either source version or > concat(source version, '+b', binNMU version).
Right, and we probably don't properly handle the case where a source versions generates differerent binary versions then the source version, not taking binNMUs into account, and then doing a binNMU of that. But those packages probably don't support binNMUs either. But it's still important that we know what the source version is, we can't assume that a "+bX" binary version is actually a binNMU. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
