Your message dated Mon, 14 Jan 2019 23:43:27 +0000 with message-id <1547509407.123992.1634641512.5f81e...@webmail.messagingengine.com> and subject line Re: Bug#671084: lintian: warn against ~dfsg versions has caused the Debian Bug report #671084, regarding lintian: warn against ~dfsg versions to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected] immediately.) -- 671084: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671084 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: lintian Version: 2.5.6 Severity: wishlist I've recently noticed a few instances of packages being assigned versions of something like 1.2~dfsg-3. That doesn't make sense: the ~ character is supposed to be for marking pre-release version tags from upstream like ~beta2, while the "dfsg" tag means it's a repack of the upstream release to remove non-free files. The two conflict with each other. So it would be nice if Lintian would flag this as a probable error, and suggest using "1.2+dfsg-3" instead. According to my quick counts, there are currently 73 source packages and 238 binary packages (at least for amd64) with such versions in sid (excluding duplicates due to multiple versions of the same package having ~dfsg in them). I also noticed there are a couple source packages with ~repack, which doesn't make sense for the same reasons, so maybe it could catch those too. (I guess this is sort of the flip side of #649277 -- that one deals with missing ~ where it should probably be used, this one deals with using ~ where it doesn't make sense.) -- Daniel Schepler
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Niels Thykier wrote: > > I'm not sure Lintian should take a stand on this, since I know this > > versioning scheme was intentional and done with thought for the > > consequences in at least some cases. > > Okay, I will take the liberty of tagging this as wontfix for now. If > the situation changes, we can revisit adding such a tag. I'm actually going to go-ahead and close this rather than have an arbitrary set of Lintian bugs closed and another arbitrary set left open as "wontfix". Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` [email protected] / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
--- End Message ---
