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

Bug#1079967: marked as done (should policy and dpkg agree on allowed versions?)

Your message dated Tue, 17 Sep 2024 13:06:49 +0100
with message-id <871q1iwkkm.fsf@zephyr.silentflame.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#1079967: should policy and dpkg agree on allowed versions?
has caused the Debian Bug report #1079967,
regarding should policy and dpkg agree on allowed versions?
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.)


-- 
1079967: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1079967
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: dpkg-dev,debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: pochu@debian.org

Hi Guillem and policy editors,

Emilio and me noticed that policy and dpkg have subtly different ideas
of what is a version. While man deb-version says

| The upstream-version may contain only alphanumerics (“A-Za-z0-9”)
| and the characters . + - : ~ (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon, tilde)
| and should start with a digit.

Debian policy section 5.6.1 says

| The upstream_version must contain only alphanumerics 6 and the
| characters . + - ~ (full stop, plus, hyphen, tilde) and should start
| with a digit. If there is no debian_revision then hyphens are not
| allowed.

Technically speaking, it is fine for policy to forbid things that dpkg
allows. Other distributions based on dpkg may use a different policy and
allow using multiple colons. Still is is an odd aspect and may cause
confusion. Is this difference intentional? If yes, would it make sense
to add a footnote to policy hinting that it is more restrictive than
dpkg? I also checked packages in unstable and found no packages with a
version containing two colons (i.e. all packages are policy-compliant in
this regard).

Thanks for considering

Helmut

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hello,

On Wed 28 Aug 2024 at 06:11pm +02, Helmut Grohne wrote:

> Technically speaking, it is fine for policy to forbid things that dpkg
> allows. Other distributions based on dpkg may use a different policy and
> allow using multiple colons. Still is is an odd aspect and may cause
> confusion. Is this difference intentional? If yes, would it make sense
> to add a footnote to policy hinting that it is more restrictive than
> dpkg? I also checked packages in unstable and found no packages with a
> version containing two colons (i.e. all packages are policy-compliant in
> this regard).

As Guillem points out, this is indeed intentional.

I'm not sure about adding a footnote because there are various
differences between Policy and dpkg, and we wouldn't want to footnote
all of them.  But if you think it's significant and want to propose a
patch adding a note, we could consider it.

Closing the bug but please reopen if you do think we should have a note.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: