[Proposal] Simplify upstream version string rule

Benjamin Mesing · External Since: Dec 30, 2004 Posts: 121

[please CC, I am not subscribed]

Hello,

currently the policy has the following rule for upstream version
strings:
The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[33] and the
characters . + - : (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon) and should
start with a digit. If there is no debian_revision then hyphens
are not allowed; if there is no epoch then colons are not
allowed.

I would suggest to change it to:
The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[33] and the
characters . + (full stop, plus) and should start with a digit.

To allow hyphen and colon complicates the definition and I believe has
small benefit. If upstream version contains such characters, those could
be easily replaced (as it is currently done with different characters.
The following commandline can be used to identify the number of packages
that actually use hyphens in the upstream version number:
# apt-cache dumpavail | perl -e 'foreach(<>) { if (/^Version:/) { if (/.+-.+-.+/) {print} } }'|wc -l
518
which is roughly 2.5% of the archive and for the colon:
# apt-cache dumpavail | perl -e 'foreach(<>) { if (/^Version:/) { if (/\d+:.+:.+/) {print} } }'|wc -l
0
which is 0% of the archive.

I think the simplification would be worth the effort to fix those 518
packages (where many share a common source package). If you disagree, at
least the colon could be totally forbidden.

Best regards

Ben

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Russ Allbery · External Since: Nov 17, 2005 Posts: 897

Benjamin Mesing <bensmail RemoveThis @gmx.net> writes:

> I think the simplification would be worth the effort to fix those 518
> packages (where many share a common source package). If you disagree, at
> least the colon could be totally forbidden.

I don't have any objections to forbidding the colon (although also no
strong support for the idea either). I do object to forbidding the
hyphen; it's not uncommon for upstream packages to include a hyphen in the
version, and I really prefer to keep the upstream version the same as
upstream whenever possible. There are other characters we can't handle,
but they're not as common as the hyphen.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Manoj Srivastava · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 761

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:38:40 +0200, Benjamin Mesing <bensmail.RemoveThis@gmx.net> said:

> [please CC, I am not subscribed] Hello,

> currently the policy has the following rule for upstream version
> strings:
> The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[33] and
> the characters . + - : (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon) and
> should start with a digit. If there is no debian_revision
> then hyphens are not allowed; if there is no epoch then
> colons are not allowed.

> I would suggest to change it to:
> The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[33] and
> the characters . + (full stop, plus) and should start with a
> digit.

> To allow hyphen and colon complicates the definition and I believe
> has small benefit.

Sorry, this is not a good justification for additional
restriction nor one for a policy change. What is so hard to
udnerstand about native debian packages should not have a hyphen,
but there is no restrictions on upstream hyphjen usage in versions?
Or that upstream versions could have colons as long as the package
has an epoch?

We have lived for years with programs and people not having
trouble with the upstream version umber, so what has changed?

I am not in favour of forbidding any future use of colons in
upstream package versions just because some one's aesthetics are
wounded.

manoj
--
The meek will inherit the Earth..... The rest of us will go to the
stars.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta.RemoveThis@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Benjamin Mesing · External Since: Dec 30, 2004 Posts: 121

[please CC, I am not subscribed]

Hello,

> Benjamin Mesing wrote:
>> currently the policy has the following rule for upstream version
>> strings:
>> The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[33] and
>> the characters . + - : (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon) and
>> should start with a digit. If there is no debian_revision
>> then hyphens are not allowed; if there is no epoch then
>> colons are not allowed.

>> I would suggest to change it to:
>> The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[33] and
>> the characters . + (full stop, plus) and should start with a
>> digit.

>> To allow hyphen and colon complicates the definition and I believe
>> has small benefit.

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Sorry, this is not a good justification for additional
> restriction nor one for a policy change. What is so hard to
> udnerstand about native debian packages should not have a hyphen,
> but there is no restrictions on upstream hyphjen usage in versions?
> Or that upstream versions could have colons as long as the package
> has an epoch?

Of course progams and humans can deal with that. But IMO simplicity is
always benefitial for one of the most fundamental guidelines for the
Debian project. The section in the policy that explains version
numbering is rather technical and could be significantly simplified
without those exceptions.

But it seems that most people value the possiblity to literally reflect
upstream version strings as far as possible higher than the
simplification of the policy.

Best regards

Ben

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Otavio Salvador · External Since: Dec 01, 2004 Posts: 622

Benjamin Mesing <bensmail.RemoveThis@gmx.net> writes:

> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Sorry, this is not a good justification for additional
>> restriction nor one for a policy change. What is so hard to
>> udnerstand about native debian packages should not have a hyphen,
>> but there is no restrictions on upstream hyphjen usage in versions?
>> Or that upstream versions could have colons as long as the package
>> has an epoch?
>
> Of course progams and humans can deal with that. But IMO simplicity is
> always benefitial for one of the most fundamental guidelines for the
> Debian project. The section in the policy that explains version
> numbering is rather technical and could be significantly simplified
> without those exceptions.
>
> But it seems that most people value the possiblity to literally reflect
> upstream version strings as far as possible higher than the
> simplification of the policy.

That makes simple to use uscan to detect new upstream versions and
other kind of comparative that might be useful with versions...

--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio.RemoveThis@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org