[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Upload getting lost

On 14 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link stated:

> * Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> [060413 06:05]:
>>>> A colon is explicitly allowed if the version contains an epoch.
>>>> In this case, the build generate file names which contain a
>>>> colon, too, and I'd expect them to be rejected in the same manner
>>>> (they look essentially the same because the epoch is dropped).
>>> Sounds like Policy needs an update to me if we're not going to
>>> accept version numbers that contain a colon (other than the epoch
>>> colon).  I'd be happy to second such a proposal.
>> Why not fix the bug instead?
> Policy has (besides other things) the job of documentating current
> practice.

        Not quite correct.  Policy has the job of docmenting what is
 technically correct, and selecting one of a number of equally viable
 technical options where numerous possibilities exist.  The primary
 purpose of policy is to ensure that diverse packages under different
 maintainers can be seamlessly integrated.

        Blindly ratifying incorrect common practices is not something
 policy should ever do -- so by itself, this line of argument is not

> This discrepancy is there for a long time. It is even
> known for a long time.  (compare e.g.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2003/10/msg00110.html)
> No one uses colons in the upstream version, as it is not possible
> for a long time. So we can either adapt the policy to the rules
> actually in action, or the fix the rules in action.  As noone needed
> it enough that it was fixed for years, and always disallowing colons
> makes the whole rule easier and brings us in a bug free state
> directly (some tools would not reject a explicitly invalid version
> then, but we know all programs work with valid versions and no other
> programs might cause problems when first hit by them) my suggestion
> is to adapt policy to practice.

        Actually, a number of programs that check for version validity
 would need to be changed, or no longer be considered authoritative,
 so we have some code fixing to do in any case.

        What is the scope of the bug fixing required to bring the
 programs in line with long established policy?

Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein. Book of Proverbs
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: