dfsg/ds/etc versioning
Hi, Does lintian check for and warn about versions like 1.2.3.dfsg1? The reason it should is this: 1.2.3 1.2.3+dfsg1 1.2.3.4 1.2.3.dfsg1 My NM found that more packages use the dot variant (621) than use the + variant (263). I also wonder if lintian checks for dsfg (vs dfsg) in the version? One package on i386 currently would trigger this warning. Should I have my NM file patches about these things? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: dfsg/ds/etc versioning
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does lintian check for and warn about versions like 1.2.3.dfsg1? The reason it should is this: 1.2.3 1.2.3+dfsg1 1.2.3.4 1.2.3.dfsg1 My NM found that more packages use the dot variant (621) than use the + variant (263). I also wonder if lintian checks for dsfg (vs dfsg) in the version? One package on i386 currently would trigger this warning. Should I have my NM file patches about these things? Currently there are no fixes for anything in this area (also including checking for the repackaged source directory in the tarball and ideally checking the watch file for version mangling as well, although there are no watch files at all at present). I'd be happy to accept patches for this. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
