On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:23:43AM +0200, Christian Kastner wrote: > To be honest, as a reader, I found that to be the opposite. The "If > [epoch] is omitted" makes it sound as if there were an alternative > handling if it's not omitted. > > So the text > > If it is omitted then the upstream_version may not contain any colons > > actually means > > The upstream_version may not contain any colons
If my memory serves correctly¹, this is just a historic remnant, as colons used to be allowed if the epoch was present (i.e., a version string "1:2.3:abc" used to be valid). ¹ and I think it does: https://salsa.debian.org/dbnpolicy/policy/-/commit/918cac858424739a5af269d993e4cadfab285b29 So, yes. I think it would be good to make the wording just clearer, instead of carrying over some previous syntax from when the rules were different. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
