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

Re: Bug#437392: debhelper: subroutine "isnative" in Dh_Lib.pm is confused by NMU of native package

On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 01:38:04PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Bart Martens wrote:

> > Policy does not explicitly state that the presence/absence of a
> > "debian_revision" or that the presence/absence of hyphen(s) "-" indicate
> > whether or not the package is a "native Debian package".
>      <debian_revision>
>           It is optional; if it isn't present then the <upstream_version>
>           may not contain a hyphen.  This format represents the case where
>           a piece of software was written specifically to be turned into a
>           Debian package, and so there is only one "debianisation" of it
>           and therefore no revision indication is required.
> This strongly implies that debian native packages don't use debian_revision.

That's why it is in the normal case.

> > > I don't know why the
> > > developers reference choses to ignore that. 

Because it may be more important to be able to identify an NMU from the
version number than to be able to identify a native package from the
version number...

> > Policy and developer's reference do not contradict explicitly on the
> > version numbering of an NMU of a native package.
> The developer's reference chose to ignore or change a longstanding practice
> of never using debian revision numbers in native packages. Changing this
> breaks software that has relied on this practice for ten or more years.
> Not just debhelper, but debstd and cdbs, and who knows what else.

How does it break them?



Reply to: