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: Whether Revisions should be required



>> You know as well as I do that this is probably not parseable, even if you 
>> know that there is a revision field.  (No criticism meant to the 

What is unparsable about that? Either I'm missing something, or all of
you are :-) So let's go through that example...
   maelstrom-1.4.1-L6-1.deb
Ok, let's strip off the package identifier:
bash$ basename maelstrom-1.4.1-L6-1.deb .deb
maelstrom-1.4.1-L6-1

Now, let's strip off the version:
bash$ echo maelstrom-1.4.1-L6-1 | sed 's/^.*-\([0-9]*\)$/\1/'
1
Given that, getting the package name is easy:
bash$ basename maelstrom-1.4.1-L6-1 -1
maelstrom-1.4.1-L6

Not that this name is any more useful :-) But that seems to be what
people want to do with it. Of course, I tend to add non-numerics to
the end of the version field, so for example, I'll pick up the source
package for cvs-1.7-3 (for example, I think it's really only -1) and
rebuild it on my system with kerberos present, it automatically
configures in the kerberos support, and I then pack it up as cvs-1.7-3krb
or something like that. This way 3krb < 4 and I can cleanly upgrade. I
don't export these packages, though, so it doesn't matter to the
standards process [though if this behaviour is deprecated, a
suggestion of an alternative mechanism would be nice.]