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