Bug#881431: proposed wording
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 at 08:12:15 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Seeking seconds:
>
> > §3.2.2 Uniqueness of version numbers
This has lost the part of Adam's wording where he explicitly said that
this applies to all three of these namespaces:
* (source package name, source version without epoch)
* (binary package name, binary version without epoch)
* (non-native source package name, upstream version without epoch or
Debian revision)
and I think that's valuable information.
Perhaps adding a paragraph like this would address that?
"""
This uniqueness requirement applies to source package names and versions,
and to binary package names and versions (even if the binary package was
previously produced by a different source package). Additionally, for
non-native packages, the upstream version without the epoch (excluding
the Debian revision) must not be reused for different content, so that
each (source package name, upstream version without epoch) pair refers
to the same original source archive (see _Source packages as archives_).
"""
(This could be interpreted as either allowing or forbidding replacement of
foo_1.2.3.orig.tar.gz with foo_1.2.3.orig.tar.xz if they uncompress
to the same foo_1.2.3.orig.tar, or even to an equivalent but not
byte-identical foo_1.2.3.orig.tar - I'd be tempted to say that's silly
and should not be allowed either, but I'm not sure how to make that more
explicit.)
> > If you find yourself wanting to reuse the part of a version number
> > after the epoch, you can just bump the Debian revision, which doesn't
> > need to start at 1 or be consecutive.
"increase the Debian revision" might be clearer and is certainly more
formal.
smcv
Reply to: