Bug#346179: debsecan: doesn't seem to correctly grok ~ in version number

2006-01-14 Thread Florian Weimer
* Florian Weimer: I'm going to add something like the following: Testing reveals that this not what APT does. I'm inclined to handle ~ versions only if python-apt is installed. Would this be acceptable to you? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe.

Bug#346179: debsecan: doesn't seem to correctly grok ~ in version number

2006-01-14 Thread Marc Haber
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 03:14:55PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: I'm inclined to handle ~ versions only if python-apt is installed. Would this be acceptable to you? I think so. Please have your package suggest python-apt and emit a meaningful warning if python-apt is not found and a ~ version is

Bug#346179: debsecan: doesn't seem to correctly grok ~ in version number

2006-01-07 Thread Florian Weimer
* Marc Haber: What happens if there are multiple ~? They are processed in order. dpkg --compare-versions handles ~ correctly. And APT? Does it behave differently? (There are differences between the two in the area of epoch handling.) I'm going to add something like the following: -

Bug#346179: debsecan: doesn't seem to correctly grok ~ in version number

2006-01-06 Thread Marc Haber
Package: debsecan Version: 0.3.4 Severity: normal Hi, debsecan complains invalid version 1.2.9-1~zg1 of package $PACKAGE The version is, however, correct. This should be fixed. Greetings Marc -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500,

Bug#346179: debsecan: doesn't seem to correctly grok ~ in version number

2006-01-06 Thread Florian Weimer
* Marc Haber: debsecan complains invalid version 1.2.9-1~zg1 of package $PACKAGE The version is, however, correct. This should be fixed. How? Is there an official description of the ~ semantics? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Bug#346179: debsecan: doesn't seem to correctly grok ~ in version number

2006-01-06 Thread Marc Haber
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:55:28AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Marc Haber: debsecan complains invalid version 1.2.9-1~zg1 of package $PACKAGE The version is, however, correct. This should be fixed. How? Is there an official description of the ~ semantics? I didn't find any

Bug#346179: debsecan: doesn't seem to correctly grok ~ in version number

2006-01-06 Thread Florian Weimer
* Marc Haber: On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:55:28AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Marc Haber: debsecan complains invalid version 1.2.9-1~zg1 of package $PACKAGE The version is, however, correct. This should be fixed. How? Is there an official description of the ~ semantics? I didn't

Bug#346179: debsecan: doesn't seem to correctly grok ~ in version number

2006-01-06 Thread Marc Haber
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:33:09PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Marc Haber: I didn't find any official description short of #150739 and #93386. The semantics are, that 1.0-1~1 is smaller than 1.0-1 but greater than 1.0-0. And this does indeed result in a linear ordering? Probably.