Hi Steve, >> Feel free to point me to false positives, as I haven't checked every >> single one of them. I know that some of them already have respective >> bugs filed against them. > > Indeed, at least some of these *are* false positives; there is nothing > that prohibits the use of dashes in native version numbers [...]
Right, thanks for pointing that out. The Debian native package state and Debian revisions are currently not directly connected. However, there were discussions[1] in the past about enforcing that. Some DDs backed it while one (major;) other described his personal packaging style as not suitable for that. However, his argument that katie already detects when packages are alternately uploaded "native" and "non-native" is not valid, since it doesn't/didn't work, see rscheme and queue (just 2 random packages from "the list"). > [...] so I don't really think it's appropriate to mass-file bugs > against packages which appear to be missing .diff.gz's until they've > been verified individually. Of course, I wouldn't just script 300+ bug openings automatically but work on them individually. A general criterion for opening a bug would be that there is a suitable upstream package/tarball available that would be suitable as for the general orig.tar.gz case, and/or that the package was non-native before and one of the last uploads turned it to native by missing the orig.tar.gz. Right? > However, noting that you've managed to tag large > numbers of core kernel packages as false-positives I was well aware that the list includes some holy cows. ;-) Therefore, I asked first. (Well, would have done that anyway.) However, I consider most kernel packages you listed as legacy Debian kernel packaging style. bye, Roland [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2001/02/msg00140.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
