Re: dpkg-genchanges failing - why?
>>"Oliver" == Oliver Elphick <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Oliver> In the end I managed to decipher the Perl script. The problem
Oliver> was because I had numbered the new version 1.3_0.82-1.
And promptly violated policy, I think. Well, if not policy,
then the packaging manual, which should be considered authoritative
in these kind of cases.
The version number format is:
This is the main part of the version. It is usually version
number of the original (`upstream') package of 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 dpkg's
format and comparison scheme.
The comparison behaviour of dpkg 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 and the
characters + . - : (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon) 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
The underscore is illegal.
Oliver> The matching inside dpkg-genchanges did not accept this as a
Oliver> normal package (? - I don't really understand what's going on
Oliver> inside there).
You really should read the packaging manual then.
Oliver> Not an entirely satisfactory solution, but good enough I
On the contrary, it is eminently satisfactory solution. Please
read the rest of the chapter on Debian package versions carefully.
There are coexisting elements in frustrating phenomena which separate
expected results from achieved results.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .