Control: found -1 dput/1.0.3 On 22-Nov-2012, Simon McVittie wrote: > See also http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=542747 > where I sent a patch to Lintian to check for this mismatch. > > Earlier [in bug#542747], Russ said "there are valid use cases for a > mismatch [when the Changes distribution isn't UNRELEASED]" but didn't > elaborate on what those valid use cases were.
In Message-ID: <87d2hslclm....@windlord.stanford.edu> (in the BTS at <URL:https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=542747#31>), Russ elaborates: > The use case that I was thinking of is not really a Debian use case. > It's relatively common for people with separate repositories to > build once and upload multiple times to different distributions if > the same package can work on multiple distributions and their > archive software requires that (as debarchiver, for example, did, or > at least it was the easiest way to make the right thing happen). > > That said, one, this is an outside-of-Debian use case, so per > Lintian's normal design philosophy, we should only take those into > account if they don't stand in the way of detecting bugs in Debian. > This clearly would detect bugs in Debian. Also, now that reprepro is > more widespread and doesn't require this sort of workaround for not > having simple distribution migration, it's not clear that use case > is particularly important any more. I agree, and we can take the same advice here: the Debian version of DPut can (and, this bug report argues, should) fail a package whose Distribution field does not match the distribution value in the Changes field. -- \ “Software patents provide one more means of controlling access | `\ to information. They are the tool of choice for the internet | _o__) highwayman.” —Anthony Taylor | Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
