Re: Bug#547272: policy 5.6.16 - Format field: Is it really 1.5?
On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > and that it can be more than a version number.
>>
>> I assume this refers to the Format field in the .dsc file.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Since policy does not currently say anything about the Format field in
>> the .dsc file, we would need to mention any constraints on the Format
>> field, and what the values the field may take. Can you expand on this,
>> please?
>
> It's a version number (<major>.<minor>) like in .changes but it can
> optionally be followed by a parenthesis with a name (like in
> "3.0 (quilt)").
>
> dpkg-source uses the major number and the content of the parenthesis to
> decide which perl module to use to build/unpack the source package:
> - 1.0 -> Dpkg::Source::Package::V1
> - 3.0 (quilt) -> Dpkg::Source::Package::V3::quilt
>
> The minor number is left to the discretion of each module.
Based on this, I think we need to explicate that the current
wording in policy about Format fields only applies to the .changes
file, and create a whole new section for the Format field in the .dsc
file.
If that sounds good, I'll see if I can whip up a wording
proposal.
manoj
--
Let the meek inherit the earth -- they have it coming to them. James
Thurber
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: