Hi! On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 08:20:01 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 07:48:58 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > > The strict parser should only take effect on anything that's not the > > > > status or the available files and --compare-versions. > > > > > > Not sure I parse your sentence correctly, but > > > --compare-versions uses the strict parser: > > > > Right, sorry I meant: > > > > strict == parse !(status && available) && --compare-versions > > Ok, but if we consider that bad versions might be in the status file, > it means those versions can be passed to maintainer scripts during > upgrade and those packages might do checks on those versions with > --compare-versions.
Yeah, was thinking the same after having replied to your previous mail. > So maybe we should really relax the parser on --compare-versions. What I've locally now is the following (might get slightly refined before the push though): --compare-versions is lax by default now, will still warn though. One of the reasons I ended up with the strict parser for --compare-versions was because I didn't want to expose a lax parseversion() function through libdpkg. But I guess it makes sense after all, as long as it's not the default mode. A new --force-bad-versions, which allows installing packages even with bogus versions (only the subset that the lax parser allows though), will still warn about them. I think Jonathan's comment has merit, and that we should allow installing old binary packages (allow here meaning making it possible, even if through a force option). thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
