* Philipp Kern ([email protected]) [100612 18:56]: > Kurt, > > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 06:50:47PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > 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. > > at least quinn-diff did. There's a Source field in the binary stanza.
The current script does as well. > But right, if the binary packages fail at producing the proper versions > we can't help that. But that's sbuild / package building interaction. Of course. > > 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. > We can, at the source level. I suppose the day someone uploads a source > version ending on "+bX" the hell will break lose anyway. (And it will > get ugly with "+b1+bX" on binNMUs, so let's forget about that. Actually, perhaps we should transition on using something else as real "binary epoch". But well, until that day we'll have a lots of shortcomings if someone uploads +b[0-9]+-binaries. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
