On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 17:05:26 +0100, Roland Stigge wrote: > On 12/05/2012 04:34 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 15:17:11 +0100, Roland Stigge wrote: > >> On 12/05/2012 03:11 PM, Roland Stigge wrote: > >>> But don't worry - it's just a minor change and at least fixes the issue > >>> for the protocol. ;-) So others won't be disturbed by it during bug > >>> squashing. > >> > >> So please consider sbuild 0.63.2-1.1 for wheezy (freeze exemption). > >> (Maybe Roger will override the package which is now in the DELAYED queue.) > >> > > What's the justification for making this bug severity:serious? Things > > breaking with a "0" debian revision kinda seems like a "don't do that > > then" situation… > > Right, I just checked Policy, 5.6.12 Version: > > "The package management system will break the version number apart at > the last hyphen in the string (if there is one) to determine the > upstream_version and debian_revision. The absence of a debian_revision > is equivalent to a debian_revision of 0." > > When pyca_20031119-0_all.deb and pyca_20031119_all.deb are equivalent, > and pyca_20031119_all.deb is definitely a native package, we shouldn't > have accepted sth. like pyca_20031119-0.diff.gz into the archive. > > Now the question is, how to handle the mess? :-) > > Maybe prevent uploads of -0.diff.gz and -0.debian.tar.bz2 in the future, > and in tools like sbuild, work around the respective broken packages > with a strategy like in the patch in #687396. The case without revision > is known to be handled well. And for "-0" packages with Debian specific > diffs/tgzs, handle them as non-native package, even though this is > formally a forbidden case. > Well I'm not saying this isn't a bug in sbuild, it clearly is. I'm just not sure about serious as the severity.
Cheers, Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature