Bug#1088443: debian-policy: Recommend Debian package version format when upstream has no releases
- To: Jeremy Bícha <jeremy.bicha@canonical.com>
- Cc: 1088443@bugs.debian.org, Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org>, Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org>
- Subject: Bug#1088443: debian-policy: Recommend Debian package version format when upstream has no releases
- From: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2024 14:56:43 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87ed2olvj8.fsf@kaka.sjd.se>
- Reply-to: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>, 1088443@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <CAD+GYvzFAiiT9kQM36kANyM3vm-q4xwLv32+XiYM0ph15xjjjQ__28993.6868751951$1733170886$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com> ("Jeremy Bícha"'s message of "Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:15:47 -0500")
- References: <CAOU6tACwAO2J2Cf=YrNXbR_xaoVMVv=2q+1L1GwYVSYq4WobxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD+GYvzFAiiT9kQM36kANyM3vm-q4xwLv32+XiYM0ph15xjjjQ__28993.6868751951$1733170886$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com> <CAOU6tACwAO2J2Cf=YrNXbR_xaoVMVv=2q+1L1GwYVSYq4WobxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Jeremy Bícha <jeremy.bicha@canonical.com> writes:
> Therefore, I used the format 0~20200916-1 for fonts-noto-color-emoji
Re-reading
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-version
I wonder if we couldn't make an argument that "upstream_version" is
empty, which actually better reflect that there is no upstream version
number instead of incorrectly claiming that upstream_version is "0".
I don't want to destroy consensus on 0~20200916-1, which is my
preference, but maybe a version string like ~20200916-1 works for the
no-upstream-version scenario.
/Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Reply to: