Le 20 avr. 2004, � 1:42, Daniel Macks a �crit :
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 01:24:29AM +0200, Mich?le Garoche wrote:Oh, I did not know about it.Le 20 avr. 2004, ? 1:13, Daniel Macks a ?crit :On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 12:59:41AM +0200, Mich?le Garoche wrote:[Quote]
Note that the purpose of epochs is to allow us to leave behind mistakes
in version numbering, and to cope with situations where the version
numbering scheme changes. It is not intended to cope with version
numbers containing strings of letters which the package management
system cannot interpret (such as ALPHA or pre-), or with silly
orderings (the author of this manual has heard of a package whose
versions went 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2 and so forth).
[/Quote]
I interpret that to mean Epoch is not designed just keep incrementing as a hack to get arbitrary versions to sort correctly (for example to use 1:2.0 to make 2.0 be higher than 2.0pre1). It doesn't seem to forbid versions "a1", "a2", "b1", etc. which *do* sort correctly.
and for upstream version at the beginning of the same paragraph [Quote] The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[28] and the characters . + - : (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon) and should start with a digit. [/Quote]
That's the exact sentence on which I based my comment, in particular the "should start with" being weaker (a suggestion) than "may contain only" (a requirement). The description of the sorting alogrithm does not require a leading digit, nor does the parsing alogrithm for %f (for full-package and .deb names) and other things that handle this information. See for example Fink's SourceForge Tracker bugs #766799.
I've only based the interpretation on this:
[Quote] chapter1, Debian Manual Policy:
In the normative part of this manual, the words must, should and may, and the adjectives required, recommended and optional, are used to distinguish the significance of the various guidelines in this policy document. Packages that do not conform to the guidelines denoted by must (or required) will generally not be considered acceptable for the Debian distribution. Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by should (or recommended) will generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a package unsuitable for distribution. Guidelines denoted by may (or optional) are truly optional and adherence is left to the maintainer's discretion.
These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities serious (for must or required directive violations), minor, normal or important (for should or recommended directive violations) and wishlist (for optional items). [2]
[/Quote]
Anyway what does Fink finally? It forbids it? Especially when dashes are in the version number? Or when the numbering scheme changes. In that case, it would be better to make as is it was forbidden and state "must", or whatever is the right English word for that. Or at least warning about possible issue, or making a recommendation.
Or better provide an example, not a basic one, and how to deal with it. (Take cssed, good example of what I mean).
This way a beginner will not be confused by Fink actually not following the Debian policy in this matter, even if it is a bug.
Mich�le <http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>
PGP.sig
Description: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ceci_est_une_signature_=E9lectronique_PGP?=
