Hi! On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 20:25:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes: > > So, in principle 2) and 3) are mostly problems in dpkg, 1) might be a > > quite good indication that upstreams do not usually do this, and 4) a > > very strong deterrent for them to do so. > > > I'm ambivalent on disallowing this in Debian, and even if policy ends > > up disallowing it might still make sense to allow it in dpkg in case > > someone outside Debian is using such thing (although I'm having a bit > > of a hard time seeing this being used in practice). > > I feel like simplicity in our version numbering scheme is best. It's > clear that no one is currently using this, and this message is the first > time I recall it even coming up. That implies that we're not losing much > (if anything) by not supporting this, even though we claimed it was > supported. > > The simplest approach for Debian seems to be to just forbid colons in > upstream version numbers. This also simplifies parsing mildly.
Right, makes sense. Although I wouldn't like for that regression in dpkg to be used as a “fait accompli” argument. > (Obviously, dpkg is free to be more generous, although it's convenient > when dpkg aligns with Debian Policy in a way that doesn't require writing > a separate Lintian rule.) So I've decided I'll merge the fix for now, which can always be reverted if Debian Policy forbids its usage, but in that case I'd probably implement a proper staged deprecation process, with warnings and all, to catch the possible but improbable external users. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150724163805.ga8...@gaara.hadrons.org
