On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 12:32:18PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote: > >> Feel free to point me to false positives, as I haven't checked every > >> single one of them. I know that some of them already have respective > >> bugs filed against them. > > Indeed, at least some of these *are* false positives; there is nothing > > that prohibits the use of dashes in native version numbers [...] > Right, thanks for pointing that out. The Debian native package state and > Debian revisions are currently not directly connected. However, there > were discussions[1] in the past about enforcing that. Right, well, see the other thread (somewhere? here?) about NMU version numbers for native packages for why I think that would be a bad idea. :) > > [...] so I don't really think it's appropriate to mass-file bugs > > against packages which appear to be missing .diff.gz's until they've > > been verified individually. > Of course, I wouldn't just script 300+ bug openings automatically but > work on them individually. > A general criterion for opening a bug would be that there is a suitable > upstream package/tarball available that would be suitable as for the > general orig.tar.gz case, and/or that the package was non-native before > and one of the last uploads turned it to native by missing the orig.tar.gz. > Right? Yes, that sounds like an appropriate filter. > > However, noting that you've managed to tag large > > numbers of core kernel packages as false-positives > I was well aware that the list includes some holy cows. ;-) Therefore, I > asked first. (Well, would have done that anyway.) > However, I consider most kernel packages you listed as legacy Debian > kernel packaging style. That's fine, but there's nothing "legacy" about the principle that a native package's version number may need dashes. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature