Re: Proposed MBF: Debian upstream version higher than watch file-reported upstream version
Hello,
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Rationale: the watch files are meant to keep track of upstream and if
>> there's a newer version not being reported by the watch file it means
>> that it needs to be fixed.
>>
>> Please note that this situation often occurs when the maintainer didn't
>> make the watch file strip some +VCSrevNNNNN that was added to the Debian
>> Version.
>>
>> If nobody objects I'll start filling (in an automated way since there are
>> no false positives) reports on the 307 source packages which report a
>> Debian upstream version higher than Upstream version by the watch file.
>
> I do object. I don't think it's really important to complicate watch files
> to strip .dfsg or +svnXXXX that are addded by Debian maintainers. The most
> important thing with watch files is that a new upstream version is
> detected... but it's not important if the report says that Debian is newer
> than upstream when in fact we're at the same version.
Ack, what about only reporting (thus in a non automated way) on those which
are not affected by any repackaging/similar version part?
Some examples:
package|Debian Version|Reported upstream version|Debian upstream version
xrn|9.02-7.1|1|9.02
swfdec-gnome|2.21.90-2|0.5.5|2.21.90
conduit|0.3.6-2|0.3.4|0.3.6
diction|uupdate|1.11|uupdate
eject|2.1.5-6|2.1.0|2.1.5
epiphany|0.7.0-1|0.6.1|0.7.0
at-spi|1.21.5-1|1.20.1|1.21.5
glib2.0|2.15.5-1|2.14.6|2.15.5
...and so on
>
> And when we have +svnXXXX we are indeed newer than the upstream released
> tarball and the information is correct! So stripping that part would be a
> mistake.
IMHO it would be better to strip that part with a dversionmangle. However,
DEHS currently compares with $upstream le $debian so those packages are
marked as up to date.
>
> Cheers,
Cheers,
Raphael
Reply to: