On 12/05/2012 04:34 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 15:17:11 +0100, Roland Stigge wrote: >> On 12/05/2012 03:11 PM, Roland Stigge wrote: >>> But don't worry - it's just a minor change and at least fixes the issue >>> for the protocol. ;-) So others won't be disturbed by it during bug >>> squashing. >> >> So please consider sbuild 0.63.2-1.1 for wheezy (freeze exemption). >> (Maybe Roger will override the package which is now in the DELAYED queue.) >> > What's the justification for making this bug severity:serious? Things > breaking with a "0" debian revision kinda seems like a "don't do that > then" situation…
Right, I just checked Policy, 5.6.12 Version: "The package management system will break the version number apart at the last hyphen in the string (if there is one) to determine the upstream_version and debian_revision. The absence of a debian_revision is equivalent to a debian_revision of 0." When pyca_20031119-0_all.deb and pyca_20031119_all.deb are equivalent, and pyca_20031119_all.deb is definitely a native package, we shouldn't have accepted sth. like pyca_20031119-0.diff.gz into the archive. Now the question is, how to handle the mess? :-) Maybe prevent uploads of -0.diff.gz and -0.debian.tar.bz2 in the future, and in tools like sbuild, work around the respective broken packages with a strategy like in the patch in #687396. The case without revision is known to be handled well. And for "-0" packages with Debian specific diffs/tgzs, handle them as non-native package, even though this is formally a forbidden case. Thanks, Roland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50bf70c6.2090...@debian.org
