Bug#971023: Version field (5.6.12) and colons
control: tag -1 + pending Hello, On Mon 09 Nov 2020 at 12:12PM +01, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 01:01:28PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> index 0d7a3e9..a21a510 100644 >> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> @@ -552,8 +552,7 @@ The three components here are: >> >> ``epoch`` >> This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be >> -omitted, in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the >> -``upstream_version`` may not contain any colons. >> +omitted, in which case zero is assumed. >> >> Epochs can help when the upstream version numbering scheme >> changes, but they must be used with care. You should not change > > I don't consider this a normative change tbh (after the previous change > already forbidding multiple colons). > If it's really needed, consider it seconded by me. I see what you mean, but typically we ask for seconds for clarifications to previous normative changes, just in case someone has a different normative interpretation of the clarification. Anyway, thanks for reviewing. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#971023: Version field (5.6.12) and colons
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 12:12:18PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 01:01:28PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > > index 0d7a3e9..a21a510 100644 > > --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > > +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > > @@ -552,8 +552,7 @@ The three components here are: > > > > ``epoch`` > > This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be > > -omitted, in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the > > -``upstream_version`` may not contain any colons. > > +omitted, in which case zero is assumed. > > > > Epochs can help when the upstream version numbering scheme > > changes, but they must be used with care. You should not change > I don't consider this a normative change tbh (after the previous change > already forbidding multiple colons). > If it's really needed, consider it seconded by me. I second the diff and what Mattia said. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C ⠈⠳⣄ There are no jobs on a dead planet. (Also many other things but people mostly seem to care about jobs.) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#971023: Version field (5.6.12) and colons
On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 01:01:28PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > index 0d7a3e9..a21a510 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst > @@ -552,8 +552,7 @@ The three components here are: > > ``epoch`` > This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be > -omitted, in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the > -``upstream_version`` may not contain any colons. > +omitted, in which case zero is assumed. > > Epochs can help when the upstream version numbering scheme > changes, but they must be used with care. You should not change I don't consider this a normative change tbh (after the previous change already forbidding multiple colons). If it's really needed, consider it seconded by me. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#971023: Version field (5.6.12) and colons
control: tag -1 + patch Hello, On Wed 30 Sep 2020 at 11:23AM +02, Christian Kastner wrote: > On 2020-09-29 02:22, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Technically superfluous but I think helpful to the reader, so I suggest >> we just keep it. > > To be honest, as a reader, I found that to be the opposite. The "If > [epoch] is omitted" makes it sound as if there were an alternative > handling if it's not omitted. > > So the text > > If it is omitted then the upstream_version may not contain any colons > > actually means > > The upstream_version may not contain any colons > > > It gets slightly more confusing when one considers dashes: > upstream_revision may have a dash if a revision exists. > > But upstream_revision may not have a colon regardless of whether an > epoch is present or not; so the "If [epoch] is omitted" seems really odd. > > Anyway, just my thoughts. Perhaps I read too much into it. No, that's reasonable. Thank you to both Mattia and Guillem too for feedback. I am seeking seconds for the following patch: diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst index 0d7a3e9..a21a510 100644 --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst @@ -552,8 +552,7 @@ The three components here are: ``epoch`` This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be -omitted, in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the -``upstream_version`` may not contain any colons. +omitted, in which case zero is assumed. Epochs can help when the upstream version numbering scheme changes, but they must be used with care. You should not change -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#971023: Version field (5.6.12) and colons
Hello, On Sat 26 Sep 2020 at 02:48pm +02, Christian Kastner wrote: > with regards to colons in version numbers, 5.6.12 states on the "epoch" > fragment: > > "If it is omitted then the upstream_version may not contain any colons." > > > However, this seems superfluous, as it states on the "upstream_version" > fragment: > > "The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics and the characters > . + - ~ (full stop, plus, hyphen, tilde)" Technically superfluous but I think helpful to the reader, so I suggest we just keep it. -- Sean Whitton
Bug#971023: Version field (5.6.12) and colons
Package: debian-policy Version: 4.5.0.3 Severity: minor Hi, with regards to colons in version numbers, 5.6.12 states on the "epoch" fragment: "If it is omitted then the upstream_version may not contain any colons." However, this seems superfluous, as it states on the "upstream_version" fragment: "The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics and the characters . + - ~ (full stop, plus, hyphen, tilde)" Best, Christian
