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

Re: epoch fix?



* Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, 2013-05-09, 07:39:
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 10:43:27AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
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.

This means the output of lintian will vary depending on what versions of the package are visible in the local packages list. AIUI that's something the lintian maintainers try very hard to avoid.

It certainly shouldn't looks at local package list. It could have a static data file listing all known packages with epoched versions, though.

And if you have data also about _past_ versions, you can implement a better heuristics than Philip proposed. Porting epoch-mistmatch-finger[0] to Lintian was on my TODO list for a while, but to be frank it doesn't look like I'll find time to implement this any time soon.

[0] http://lists.debian.org/20120705213427.GA2278@jwilk.net

--
Jakub Wilk


Reply to: