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

Bug#840002: marked as done ([5.6.12 Version] Wrong version ordering with "+XXXX" suffixes)

Your message dated Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:52:23 -0800
with message-id <87d1g746hk.fsf@hope.eyrie.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#840002: [5.6.12 Version] Wrong version ordering with "+XXXX" suffixes
has caused the Debian Bug report #840002,
regarding [5.6.12 Version] Wrong version ordering with "+XXXX" suffixes
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.)


-- 
840002: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=840002
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: packaging-manual

When a package uses a changed tarball (by removing some files from the
original one), this is usually indicated by adding a "+dfsg" or
"+repack" to the upstream version number.

This, however, may lead to a wrong version ordering of version numbers,
as seen in the "saods9" package:

The old package version is 7.5rc by upstream, which translates to
7.5~rc+repack for the (squeezed) debian orig tarball.

After that, upstream released a 7.5rc2, which would translate to
7.5~rc2+repack using the same rules.

However, they have the wrong order:

$ dpkg --compare-versions 7.5~rc+repack lt 7.5~rc2+repack && \
                        echo lt || echo ge
ge

dbkg is not to blame here, since this order is determined by the Debian
Policy, § 5.6.12.

IMO the policy should be changed here to handle the "+" differently
according to its common use: analogous to the "~" it should be sorted
before everything else, but /after/ the end of a part.

Best regards

Ole

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Control: tags -1 wontfix

Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> writes:

> When a package uses a changed tarball (by removing some files from the
> original one), this is usually indicated by adding a "+dfsg" or
> "+repack" to the upstream version number.

> This, however, may lead to a wrong version ordering of version numbers,
> as seen in the "saods9" package:

> The old package version is 7.5rc by upstream, which translates to
> 7.5~rc+repack for the (squeezed) debian orig tarball.

> After that, upstream released a 7.5rc2, which would translate to
> 7.5~rc2+repack using the same rules.

Yes, 7.5rc is an unfortunate version number from a Debian perspecive if
you're adding suffixes to it.  It's hard to realize until you run into
this, but in Debian you probably want to package this as 7.5rc0 for
reasons like this.

> However, they have the wrong order:

> $ dpkg --compare-versions 7.5~rc+repack lt 7.5~rc2+repack && \
>                         echo lt || echo ge
> ge

> dbkg is not to blame here, since this order is determined by the Debian
> Policy, § 5.6.12.

> IMO the policy should be changed here to handle the "+" differently
> according to its common use: analogous to the "~" it should be sorted
> before everything else, but /after/ the end of a part.

I agree that this is unfortunate and confusing in this specific case.  But
I'm afraid there's just no way that we can change the sort order at this
point.  This is foundational everything that manipulates packages in
Debian, and years of package uploads have been done on the basis of the
current sort order.  It would be hugely disruptive to redefine it now.
The only change we've made is to assign meaning to a character that was
previously prohibited.  Any future change would have to be similarly
backward-compatible.

This is the sort of standard that, once set, you're pretty much stuck
with, for good or for ill.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--- End Message ---
Reply to: