* Julien Cristau [Son Apr 03, 2011 at 10:16:47 +0200]: > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 05:03:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 21:28:08 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > > dpkg 1.16.0 appears to refuse to install packages which have a Version: > > > field which does not start with a digit. > > This is in line with the recent changes to properly parse and validate > > the data dpkg has to handle. > > > The Debian policy currently states: > > > The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[33] and the > > > characters . + - : ~ (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon, tilde) and *should* > > > start with a digit. > > > I don't see why this would forbid versions starting with an > > > anlphanumeric character. > > Well, while I generally agree dpkg does not need to be as strict as > > policy when it might make sense to be laxer outside Debian, in this > > case I don't see the point in allowing the version to start with an > > alphabetic character. This is an interface other software rely on, > > and expect it to be as specified, so making sure dpkg validates and > > disallows bogus values seems the correct thing to do. > I don't see the point in disallowing these versions in dpkg, they won't > cause any problem anywhere, they're just discouraged by policy... Maybe > we want dak to forbid them, but that's a different thing. Yeah, actually the change is breaking existing packages which used to work just fine (disclaimer: no, the ones I'm talking about aren't available in the official Debian pool). I understand the change but a timeframe for upgrading would be nice with warnings instead of erroring out. regards, -mika-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
