Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Manoj Srivastava:
>
>> Not quite correct. Policy has the job of docmenting what is
>> technically correct, and selecting one of a number of equally viable
>> technical options where numerous possibilities exist. The primary
>> purpose of policy is to ensure that diverse packages under different
>> maintainers can be seamlessly integrated.
>
> But the current specification has failed us in this regard. It seems
> that every developer who reads the version specification in the policy
> interprets it differently. We have at least four slightly different
> version comparison algorithms in the archive.
Version comparison is explained a bit vague in policy. The format of a
version is defined very strictly:
| epoch
|
| This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be
| omitted, in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the
| upstream_version may not contain any colons.
But all of this is irelevant to the actual problem. The problem is in
the encoding of the version into the filenames of debs. The encoding
drops the epoch, probably to (unsuccessfully) avoid ":" in filenames
which could cause problems for some protocols.
The DAK wrongfully assumes filenames have no ":" in them since the
epoch gets droped. But that is just a violation of policy and trivialy
to fix.
On the other hand the DAK could simply restrict the allowed versions
accepted by debian more than policy requires. Just like uploads have
to be in the override files or have a higher version than a previous
upload.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
