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

Bug#620566: dpkg: "version number does not start with digit" is in contrast to policy



On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 05:03:47AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> reassign 620566 debian-policy
> severity 620566 normal
> tags 620566 patch
> retitle 620566 Sync upstream version format with what dpkg accepts now
> thanks
> 
> On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 21:28:08 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > Package: dpkg
> > Version: 1.16.0
> > Severity: important
> > Tags: sid
> 
> > dpkg 1.16.0 appears to refuse to install packages which have a Version:
> > field which does not start with a digit.
> 
> This is in line with the recent changes to properly parse and validate
> the data dpkg has to handle.
> 
> > The Debian policy currently states:
> > The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[33] and the
> > characters . + - : ~ (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon, tilde) and *should*
> > start with a digit.
> > 
> > I don't see why this would forbid versions starting with an
> > anlphanumeric character.
> 
> Well, while I generally agree dpkg does not need to be as strict as
> policy when it might make sense to be laxer outside Debian, in this
> case I don't see the point in allowing the version to start with an
> alphabetic character. This is an interface other software rely on,
> and expect it to be as specified, so making sure dpkg validates and
> disallows bogus values seems the correct thing to do.
> 
> > Either dpkg should again install packages with such Version: fields, or
> > the policy should be changed to reflect this new requirement.
> 
> Then I guess this is a request to change the ‘should’ to a ‘must’.
> Attached patch against policy master.

I formally object to that change in policy, since no rationale is provided.
For the time being, #620566 is a bug in dpkg.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: