On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:23:43AM +0200, Christian Kastner wrote:
> To be honest, as a reader, I found that to be the opposite. The "If
> [epoch] is omitted" makes it sound as if there were an alternative
> handling if it's not omitted.
>
> So the text
>
> If it is omitted then the upstream_version may not contain any colons
>
> actually means
>
> The upstream_version may not contain any colons
If my memory serves correctly¹, this is just a historic remnant, as
colons used to be allowed if the epoch was present (i.e., a version
string "1:2.3:abc" used to be valid).
¹ and I think it does: https://salsa.debian.org/dbnpolicy/policy/-/commit/918cac858424739a5af269d993e4cadfab285b29
So, yes. I think it would be good to make the wording just clearer,
instead of carrying over some previous syntax from when the rules were
different.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature