James Vega <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 11:04:26AM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 10:46:24 +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: >> > Martin Zobel-Helas <[email protected]> writes: >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > > This seems to happen due to the "_" in the version number >> > > (version_compare from Dpkg::Version, called by Devscripts::Versort). I >> > > have currently no time to investigate any further. >> > >> > Yes, the use of Dpkg::Version is a bad idea, because _ in version number >> > aren't allowed by Debian and thus rejected here. >> >> Debian Policy says about this: >> >> | upstream_version: >> | >> | This is the main part of the version number. It is usually the version >> | number of the original ("upstream") package from which the .deb file has >> | been made, if this is applicable. Usually this will be in the same >> | format as that specified by the upstream author(s); however, it may need >> | to be reformatted to fit into the package management system's format and >> | comparison scheme. >> | >> | The comparison behavior of the package management system with respect to >> | the upstream_version is described below. The upstream_version portion of >> | the version number is mandatory. >> | >> | The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[32] and the >> | characters . + - : ~ (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon, tilde) and should >> | start with a digit. If there is no debian_revision then hyphens are not >> | allowed; if there is no epoch then colons are not allowed. >> >> so yes, maybe we should not use Dpkg::Version for comparing it. > > Interesting conclusion since the quoted part of policy specifies both > that “it may need to be reformatted to fit into the package management > system's format” and that the version “may contain only > alphanumerics[32] and the characters . + - : ~”. This seems like > precisely the reason we have uversionmangle support in uscan -- to > mangle upstream's strange versions into something useful for Debian. > > I'm not strictly opposed to going back to the old behavior (which we can > do using Dpkg::Version), but I think there should be a good reason to > accept invalid versions.
Debian policy is for ... Debian We don't have control for upstream filename. The error is after scanning the *upstream* filename on remote site. Christian -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
