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

Bug#946724: marked as done (dh-elpa: fails on native package versions with '+')

Your message dated Sun, 15 Dec 2019 16:00:39 +0100
with message-id <20191215150039.mnqce3x2dy6uvpgg@dinghy.sail.spinnaker.de>
and subject line Re: Bug#946724: dh-elpa: fails on native package versions with '+'
has caused the Debian Bug report #946724,
regarding dh-elpa: fails on native package versions with '+'
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
946724: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=946724
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: dh-elpa
Version: 2.0.2
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,

trying to build lbdb with version 0.49+foo fails when calling
dh_elpa with the following message:

   dh_elpa
Invalid version syntax: `0.49+foo'
dh_elpa: emacs -batch -Q -l package --eval (add-to-list 'package-directory-list "/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/elpa") --eval (add-to-list 'package-directory-list "/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/elpa-src") -f package-initialize -l dh-elpa.el -f dhelpa-batch-install-directory debian/elpa-lbdb//usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/elpa-src /build/lbdb-0.49+foo/debian/.debhelper/elpa/lbdb /build/lbdb-0.49+foo/debian/.debhelper/elpa 1552316645 returned exit code 255
make: *** [debian/rules:15: binary] Error 255

(see https://salsa.debian.org/roland/lbdb/-/jobs/455490 for another
example).

I can reproduce the same behavior with dh-elpa 1.16 on buster as well
as with 2.0.2 on sid.

Using the "normal" version number 0.49 doesn't trigger the issue but
changing it to 0.49+foo or the like always triggers above failure.

According to deb-version(7) and policy chapter 5.6.12 the upstream
version of a package is allowed to contain a plus sign, so 0.49+foo is
a valid version number.

Greetings
Roland

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi David!

On So, 15 Dez 2019, David Bremner wrote:

> Emacs has stricter requirements for versions than debian policy. You
> can specify the "elpa version" seperately if needed. There is some
> discussion under HINTS in dh_elpa(1).

> Is +foo really specified by upstream, or is it standing in for
> something else?  See the docstring for the emacs function
> version-to-list for acceptable formats. In particulur 20191215git3
> should work for the third git snapshot of today.

It's a Debian native package, which currently has version 0.48 or 0.49
(unreleased), so this usually shouldn't be a problem.
The issue is triggered by salsa pipeline which automatically appends
"+salsaci1" (see
https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/issues/78) to avoid
problems with already released versions.

But the same should happen on an binNMU, where +nmu1 or +b1 is
appended to the package version.

But I just noticed, that I use autoconf to automatically write the
Debian version number from debian/changelog into lbdb-pkg.el, which
triggers the issue.
Changing the autoconf stuff to strip any suffix starting with "+" from
the version number that is written to lbdb-pkg.el.

I'm not sure, whether lbdb is the only package, that works that way,
but from my point of view this issue can be closed, so I send the
close request now...

Sorry for stealing your time and thanks for your help!

Greetings
Roland

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: