Has there been any progress on this bug?
We (Grml) would like to switch back to short Version: strings for our
kernel packages, as they already have the major version number in
the package name, to allow co-installation of multiple versions, and
there's no point in duplicating this info in the
Hi,
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, chris h wrote:
We (Grml) would like to switch back to short Version: strings for our
kernel packages, as they already have the major version number in
the package name, to allow co-installation of multiple versions, and
there's no point in duplicating this info in the
Hi,
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
2) This change breaks actual packages. Even if no such package exist in
squeeze, users
could still want to install older or unofficial packages, or created with
dpkg-repack.
The next version of dpkg has --force-bad-version to work around this.
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Bill Allombert
bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr wrote:
I formally object to that change in policy, since no rationale is provided.
For the time being, #620566 is a bug in dpkg.
So, should this bug then be assigned back to dpkg?
Is there anything which prevents
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Carsten Hey wrote:
upstream_version git1234 could be prefixed with epoch 0 and thus lead to
the version number 0:git1234-debian_revision. Maybe this could be
Nah. Just drop the leading 'git'.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
We have no upstream with such
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
My inclination is to second this, but I want to make sure that we've
answered your and Julien's objections first.
And for complete reference, dpkg accepts those version in
/var/lib/dpkg/status (so that dpkg
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
It does not allow them in available though breaking many systems that
have or in the past had a package with such a version available. At
least 4 people on irc have run into that problem that I saw already.
It does allow them in available. Those
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 05:03:47AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
reassign 620566 debian-policy
severity 620566 normal
tags 620566 patch
retitle 620566 Sync upstream version format with what dpkg accepts now
thanks
On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 21:28:08 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
Package:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
My inclination is to second this, but I want to make sure that we've
answered your and Julien's objections first.
And for complete reference, dpkg accepts those version in
/var/lib/dpkg/status (so that dpkg still works for
* Russ Allbery [Sun Apr 03, 2011 at 08:12:03PM -0700]:
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org writes:
Yeah, actually the change is breaking existing packages which used to
work just fine (disclaimer: no, the ones I'm talking about aren't
available in the official Debian pool).
I understand the
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 02:23:25AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011, Russ Allbery wrote:
My inclination is to second this, but I want to make sure that we've
answered your and Julien's objections first.
And for complete reference, dpkg accepts
* Bill Allombert [2011-04-04 12:03 +0200]:
Unfortunately, we cannot force upstream to use a version that start by a
digit,
We would need to document a mangling process for upstream version that start
by a letter.
Quoting policy:
| epoch
|
| This is a single (generally small) unsigned
Hi,
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Bill Allombert wrote:
1. upstream_version must start with a digit;
Unfortunately, we cannot force upstream to use a version that start by a
digit,
We would need to document a mangling process for upstream version that start
by a letter.
We have no upstream with
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:59:43PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
* Bill Allombert [2011-04-04 12:03 +0200]:
Unfortunately, we cannot force upstream to use a version that start by a
digit,
We would need to document a mangling process for upstream version that start
by a letter.
Quoting
Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
it's trivial to add a leading 0.
We could recommend that explicitly if it would help. It would be my
recommendation even without the restriction on version numbers, since
alphanumerics would sort after any numbers, so you'd
Russ Allbery wrote:
I think this is an interesting conversation, but so far as I can tell it's
not particularly relevant to Policy. There are no such packages with
those version numbers currently in Debian, so Policy can simply say that
there will never be in the future either and be done
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
What about previously-in-archive packages?
Are there any of significance? The example you gave in your previous mail
doesn't appear in the BTS at all, so I assume it's quite old if it was
ever in the archive.
Raphael said that dpkg wouldn't break
Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
What about previously-in-archive packages?
Are there any of significance?
I don't know. The example I gave was from a dpkg bug report, and I
don't know if it was contrived or not (one would have to ask the
submitter).
I admit
Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
What about previously-in-archive packages?
Are there any of significance?
Ah, I forgot to say: I think changing this to a must with advice to
add a 0 when the upstream version does not start with a number would
be a good change.
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:40:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think this is an interesting conversation, but so far as I can tell it's
not particularly relevant to Policy. There are no such packages with
those version numbers currently in Debian, so Policy can simply say that
there will never be
Full quoting because you didn't cc the policy list when reassigning...
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 05:03:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
reassign 620566 debian-policy
severity 620566 normal
tags 620566 patch
retitle 620566 Sync upstream version format with what dpkg accepts now
thanks
On Sat,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA384
Guillem Jover dixit…
tt:/tt tt~/tt (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon,
- tilde) and should start with a digit. If there is no
+ tilde) and must start with a digit. If there is no
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 05:03:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
Well, while I generally agree dpkg does not need to be as strict as
policy when it might make sense to be laxer outside Debian, in this
case I don't see the point in allowing the version to
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org writes:
Yeah, actually the change is breaking existing packages which used to
work just fine (disclaimer: no, the ones I'm talking about aren't
available in the official Debian pool).
I understand the change but a timeframe for upgrading would be nice with
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org (03/04/2011):
I'm not a fan of having DAK reject things that Policy says are
allowed.
Neither am I.
I think we should either allow it or not allow it, but Policy and
DAK should agree.
Yes, pretty please.
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
reassign 620566 debian-policy
Bug #620566 [dpkg] dpkg: version number does not start with digit is in
contrast to policy
Bug reassigned from package 'dpkg' to 'debian-policy'.
Bug No longer marked as found in versions dpkg/1.16.0.
severity
26 matches
Mail list logo
