Re: Bug#971023: Version field (5.6.12) and colons
On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 13:56:47 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> 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.
Yes, more so given that this is a Debian policy specific restriction,
whereas dpkg does still treat such versions as valid.
Thanks,
Guillem
Reply to: