Bug#414511: lintian: lintain complains about non-binnmu being binnmu
Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de> writes:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 1.23.27
> Severity: normal
> When building new classpath package for testing-proposed-updates I tried
> to use the version number 2:0.91-3.etch.1 and lintian gave this warning:
> W: classpath source: maintainer-upload-has-incorrect-version-number 2:0.91-3.etch.1
> W: classpath source: binary-nmu-debian-revision-in-source 2:0.91-3.etch.1
> This version is neither incorrect not a binnmu.
lintian didn't know about the new +b syntax for binNMUs, which is
definitely a bug. I'm working on fixing that now.
I'm less certain that your version number is correct. This isn't a
particularly well-standardized part of Debian, but the convention is that
using a period in the Debian revision indicates an NMU. My understanding
is that backports.org recommends using a period in their Debian revision
precisely because such backports are often NMUs. Usually, that version is
written -3etch1 rather than -3.etch.1. (If it isn't an NMU, how would you
version an NMU? -3.etch.1.1? And how could someone know from the version
whether it was an NMU?)
I'm willing to be convinced, though. What do you think of the above
argument?
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: