Hi! On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 05:40:39 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 19:58:24 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > Joe Neal wrote: > > > Upgrading dpkg fails due to having it installed, however. I'm > > > concerned about the potential for Lenny --> Squeeze upgrade > > > failures for people with this package installed under Lenny. > > I guess an option could be mentioning the possible issues with bogus > versions on the release notes.
Given the amount of comments to these bug reports and their nature I don't think this would be acceptable, even more given the tedious recovery needed. > > As for a proper solution: I have no idea. I am not sure dpkg should > > be enforcing policy like this. It might be better to check sanity > > by excluding empty strings and some *forbidden* characters and > > leaving the rest to checkers like lintian. I've been thinking about a proper solution for this, this is what I think would be ideal, for which I've started coding: * dpkg should not error out (warn at most, but that might be too annoying too) when parsing the status and available files, we might switch these to errors after one Debian release, but maybe then only for the status file. * dpkg should error out on parsing bogus versions on anything else, which include things such as Dpkg perl modules, dpkg-deb, dpkg --compare-versions, and parsing control files from newly installed packages, which would prevent installing new bogus packages. * The version checks will be able to get stricter, there's still some invalid syntax not being checked for, I've also some preliminary patches for this. thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
