On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 20:07:57 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> writes: > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 05:03:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > >> 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. > > I'm not a fan of having DAK reject things that Policy says are allowed. > The primary purpose of Policy is to document the requirements for the > Debian archive, so if the Debian archive doesn't allow something, Policy > should say that. Otherwise, it's just confusing. Out-of-archive packages > are always allowed (and sometimes expected) to ignore bits of Policy. > > I think we should either allow it or not allow it, but Policy and DAK > should agree. > Agreed, dak should only reject these names if policy does. I have no particular opinion on the policy change, I just think the dpkg change is wrong.
Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110404090015.gh3...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
