Bug#620566: dpkg: "version number does not start with digit" is in contrast to policy

2011-06-16 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Hi, On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, chris h wrote: > We (Grml) would like to switch back to short Version: strings for our > kernel packages, as they already have the major "version number" in > the package name, to allow co-installation of multiple versions, and > there's no point in duplicating this info i

Bug#620566: dpkg: "version number does not start with digit" is in contrast to policy

2011-06-16 Thread chris h
Has there been any progress on this bug? We (Grml) would like to switch back to short Version: strings for our kernel packages, as they already have the major "version number" in the package name, to allow co-installation of multiple versions, and there's no point in duplicating this info in the Ve

Processed (with 1 errors): Re: Bug#620566: dpkg: "version number does not start with digit" is in contrast to policy

2011-06-16 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 620566 dpkg: "version number does not start with digit" is in Bug #620566 [dpkg] Sync upstream version format with what dpkg accepts now Changed Bug title to 'dpkg: "version number does not start with digit" is in' from 'Sync upstream ver

Bug#620566: dpkg: "version number does not start with digit" is in contrast to policy

2011-05-27 Thread Joey Hess
Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Please reconsider. I think it's been well explained that version numbers > ought to start with a "number". Where? Also, f is a number around here. Example breakage includes the bitlbee bzr snapshots, which many stable users of bitlbee were probably using. -- see shy jo

Bug#620566: dpkg: "version number does not start with digit" is in contrast to policy

2011-05-24 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Hi, On Tue, 24 May 2011, Bill Allombert wrote: > 2) This change breaks actual packages. Even if no such package exist in > squeeze, users > could still want to install older or unofficial packages, or created with > dpkg-repack. The next version of dpkg has --force-bad-version to work around th

Processed: Re: Bug#620566: dpkg: "version number does not start with digit" is in contrast to policy

2011-04-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 620566 debian-policy Bug #620566 [dpkg] dpkg: "version number does not start with digit" is in contrast to policy Bug reassigned from package 'dpkg' to 'debian-policy'. Bug No longer marked as found in versions dpkg/1.16.0. > severity 62

Bug#620566: dpkg: "version number does not start with digit" is in contrast to policy

2011-04-02 Thread Guillem Jover
reassign 620566 debian-policy severity 620566 normal tags 620566 patch retitle 620566 Sync upstream version format with what dpkg accepts now thanks On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 21:28:08 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.16.0 > Severity: important > Tags: sid > dpkg 1.16.

Bug#620566: dpkg: "version number does not start with digit" is in contrast to policy

2011-04-02 Thread Christian Hofstaedtler
Package: dpkg Version: 1.16.0 Severity: important Tags: sid Hi, dpkg 1.16.0 appears to refuse to install packages which have a Version: field which does not start with a digit. The Debian policy currently states: The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[33] and the characters . + - :