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

Re: epoch fix?

Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:

> On 05/08/2013 06:30 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>>     # in unstable
>>     Package: bar
>>     Build-Depends: libfoo-dev (>= 1.5)
>> The 'bar' maintainer intended to require the unstable version of
>> libfoo-dev, but in fact the dependency is satisfied from stable as
>> well.
> Yeah! And this mistake is very easy to make.
> I did a similar "woopsie" recently myself with Breaks / Replaces,
> (which was quickly solved) even though I quite know what
> I was doing, simply because I forgot about the epoch. Of course,
> that made the Breaks / Replaces completely useless.
> Though, is there a way to fix human brains? I don't think so...
> Would having the epoch written in the generated file names
> solve the problem? I don't think so either...

Looks like it might be possible to for test with lintian.

I presume it's OK to add the implicit 0: to non-epoch depends?

If so, lintian could complain whenever a dependency is specified on a
package with an epoch, unless the versions specified also include an
epoch, and if you really meant the pre-epoch version, you could just add
the 0: to get rid of the warning.

Cheers, Phil.
|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]    http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.                    http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND

Attachment: pgpKzKdgckqbk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: