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 Thu, 7 Mar 1996, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:

> [...]
> One thing I can't figure out is how dpkg knows the debian-revision field.
> There used to be a "Revision" field in the control file, but dpkg now
> tells me:
> 
> warning, in file `debian-tmp/DEBIAN/control' near line 15 package `sysvinit':
>  obsolete `Revision' or `Package-Revision' field used
> 
> It seems to me that having 3 fields, "Package", "Version" and "Revision"
> is the way to go, not to stuff the revision field into the version field.
> 
> The guidelines do not mention the Package-Revision: field, but the sample-files
> do. Help! :) [I think it would be good to restore the usage of that field]

Hmm ... ok, here's my guess :-) (hopefully Ian will put me right if I'm 
miles off the mark here).

As we all know, dpkg now expects the field

Version: <upstream_version>[-<debian_revision>]

and the <debian_revision> may not contain a `-' character.  So I suppose 
dpkg must look for the last `-' in the Version: field, and split it there.

This works fine, provided that there *is* a <debian_revision> part.  I'm 
now wondering what happens if you have a version number which contains a 
`-', but no revision, e.g. in

Version: 1.3.4-BETA

would dpkg try to convert `BETA' into a revision number? :-)  Although 
the Guidelines do say that the upstream version shouldn't contain `-' 
chars to avoid confusion, didn't Ian recently say (in this thread) that 
it wasn't inforced? ...

I suppose the sample files must be outdated, if they still have two 
separate fields for version and revision.

Oh well ...

Nikhil.