On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Daniel Hartwig <mand...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 April 2013 03:56, Nick Black <nick.bl...@sprezzatech.com> wrote: >> [my package is broken] > > The SprezzOS1 version is no longer available in > <http://www.sprezzatech.com/apt/pool/main/a/apt/>. > > Does the issue persist, and have you eliminated packaging errors on your part?
It's a "packaging issue" in the sense that the Depends line (or better: a version number in it) is sub-optimally written: In the show output above you see: […] Depends: libapt-pkg4.12 (>= 0.9.7.8-) […] […] Depends: libapt-pkg4.12 (>= 0.9.7.8) […] […] The later is from the dpkg/status file while the first is coming from the Packages file. dpkg rewrites version numbers in the status file to a canonical form. The method used to detect if two versions with the same version number are indeed the same version in libapt is a simple operation on strings, so it doesn't do this rewriting: hence it detects the two versions as different. (Another instance is the zero-epoch by the way; < vs. <= is dealt with) I guess it would be a good idea to at least add a lintian warning for sub- optimally written version numbers. I don't know if dpkg provides a simple interface for getting a canonical rewrite of version numbers though. I varguely remember that dpkg maintainers were against doing their rewrite while building packages, but I am not entirely sure. "Fixing" this in APT is hard as it would basically mean we need to parse those lines while this hashing is used to avoid parsing them without the need to depend on "same version number equals same version" assumption … (this "feature" already wastes quiet a bit of time) Best regards David Kalnischkies -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
