On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 04:06:21AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> In principle, every Package entry in Packages needs a Source field that
> points to the source package name and version number; the version number is
> optional if it is the same as the binary package version, the entire field
> is
Hi,
Matt Kraai wrote:
[apt-get source does not work on binNMU'd packages]
I think we should rather fix the binNMU process. The "+b[0-9]*" thing is
only a convention, after all, and there are others in use (e.g. when
backporting).
I don't have a problem with changing the binNMU process, but
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 02:00:31PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Matt Kraai wrote:
>
>> The attached patch makes apt-get strip the binary-only NMU suffix from
>> the binary package version to construct the source package version.
>
>> I've tested that it allows me to use "apt-get source" on package
Hi,
Matt Kraai wrote:
The attached patch makes apt-get strip the binary-only NMU suffix from
the binary package version to construct the source package version.
I've tested that it allows me to use "apt-get source" on packages that
have had binary-only NMUs.
I think we should rather fix th
tag 382826 patch
thanks
The attached patch makes apt-get strip the binary-only NMU suffix from
the binary package version to construct the source package version.
I've tested that it allows me to use "apt-get source" on packages that
have had binary-only NMUs.
If I should regenerate it against a
5 matches
Mail list logo
