Guillem Jover writes: > On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 09:44:21 +0200, Ansgar wrote: >> Guillem Jover writes: >> > On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 08:15:07 +0200, Ansgar wrote: >> >> With the first binNMU the changelog used 5.2.17+1+b1 as the version >> >> and this caused disagreement between different parts of dpkg. >> >> dpkg-source generates linux-signed-amd64_5.2.17+1+b1.dsc, but >> >> dpkg-genchanges strips the trailing +b1 from the version: >> [...] >> >> I'll suggest to work around this by mangling the version a bit more >> >> and use .b1 instead of +b1, but the disagreement seems to be a bug in >> >> dpkg. >> > >> > It looks to me that the problem might actually be the missing >> > binary-only=yes key/value in the changelog header though, which the >> > original should have? Could you check whether that would completely >> > fix this? >> >> It should generate a new *source* package, it is not binary-only. >> dpkg-source does do so. > > Why should it generate a new source?
Because sourceful uploads need a new source package. > This is using the version suffix > for binNMUs, using this convention for something that is not a binNMU > seems just wrong. That's why I wrote the following: >> >> I'll suggest to work around this by mangling the version a bit more >> >> and use .b1 instead of +b1, but the disagreement seems to be a bug in >> >> dpkg. (I don't care about using ".b1" instead of "+b1".) >> But dpkg-genchanges seems to (still) use the heuristic stripping the +bX >> from versions instead of using the binary-only key (which is not present >> here). >> >> I think either: >> >> - dpkg-source should refuse to generate source packages using >> binNMU version numbers (that trigger the heuristic that other parts >> of dpkg use), or > > This would still point at a problem with the version used. I'd rather > stop using the heuristic because we have metadata for this, and they > are Debian-centric things. So using "+b1" should be supported? > But if the alernative is to allow packages > that break the versioning convention for no apparent good reason, then > I guess I might need to move this as a vendor-specific logic, and apply > it everywhere. :/ So using "+b1" should not be supported? I reported the bug because dpkg seems undecided if it should support "+b1" or not. Whatever it decides, it should probably be consistent between differnt parts of itself. Ansgar
