The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Guidelines docs on ftp.debian.org.

On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Nikhil Nair wrote:

> Do upstream version numbers ever contain `-' chars?

Upstream package names and version numbers can, of course, contain
whatever the upstream maintainer puts in them.  My understanding
is thay need to be massaged by the debian maintainer so that
they conform with the following:

    <name>-<upstream-version>-<debian-revision>-<extension>

   name:              no restriction
   upstream-version:  no '-' chars allowed (probably transliterate to '_')
   debian-revision:   no '-' or '.' chars allowed
   extension:         no '-' chars allowed

> AIUI, having a known (revision field) between two unknowns (version and
> extension) [speaking in terms of format] allows us to separate the two ... 
> 
> However, there are still two approaches here:
>    1. Make revisions compulsory, so we know it's a ppc package called 
>       foo-12;
>    2. Make revisions compulsory ONLY for packages with absolutely stupid 
>       upstream version numbers, like 1.23a.ppc :-).  I think we'd be 
>       insulting the intelligence of developers if we suggested they 
>       weren't capable of doing that ... and this wouldn't affect many 
>       packages, would it? :-)
> 
> >   How should an automated distribution maintenance script decide? 
> 
> Fair point, but isn't that why it's compulsory to upload a .changes file 
> as well?  Surely that will contain the fields in a more friendly format?  

Ok then, how should an automated changes file maker decide?

> When it comes to dftp &c, files would be in the right directory by that 
> time wouldn't they, so the .ppc thing wouldn't be a problem ...

This sounds like we're considering placing restrictions on what
directories the files are required to reside in when the maintainer
invokes the automated changes file maker.  We're considering placing
those restrictions on maintainers of 300-odd packages.  The
motivation behind placing these restrictions is to allow the
maintainers of one or two (or perhaps three or four) packages
to omit the revision field because they object to its presence
on stylistic grounds, while disregarding those maintainers who
feel that the revision field should be required on stylistic
grounds.