Re: upstream packages with bad version number
>>>>> "Ingo" == Ingo Saitz <Ingo.Saitz@stud.uni-hannover.de> writes:
Ingo> MoiN I just found that some (398) packages which seem to be
Ingo> build from upstream sources contain a bad version
Ingo> string. e.g.:
Ingo> adolc_1.8.7-3.tar.gz an_0.93-1.2.tar.gz an_0.93-2.tar.gz
Ingo> animals_19991226-4.1.tar.gz aolserver_3.0rc2-4.tar.gz
Ingo> apmd_3.0final-1.tar.gz apt-show-source_0.02-1.tar.gz
Ingo> autobook_1.1-2.tar.gz [...]
Ingo> According to the packaging manual, chapter 5, "the
Ingo> upstream-version may contain only alphanumerics and the
Ingo> characters . + - : [...] if there is no debian-revision then
Ingo> hyphens are not allowed".
Ingo> Because the above packages are upstream sources (really? At
Ingo> least the .tar.gz doesn't contain an .orig in its name)
Ingo> either the version of those packages or the packaging manual
Ingo> needs to be changed.
>From the packaging manual in potato:
"If there is no original source code - for example, if the package is
specially prepared for Debian or the Debian maintainer is the same as
the upstream maintainer - the format is slightly different: then there
is no diff, and the tarfile is named package_version.tar.gz and
contains a directory package-version."
Somewhere just recently I saw someone posting a message saying it was
a good idea if these packages contain a debian revision number - as it
allows distinguishing between a potato build and a woody build for
instance, without changing the upstream version number. As no diff is
used, the full version (including debian revision) must be included in
the tar.gz file.
I would argue that there are two cases:
1. debian revision number is changed because package is rebuilt on a
different system. In which case, why require a new tar.gz file to be
2. debian revision number is changed because package is changed, for
Debian specific reasons. In which case, why shouldn't this be
represented as a diff? This has the benefit of using pristine source,
based on the upstream version number.
therefore, I don't see why tar.gz packages should ever contain debian
Brian May <email@example.com>