Hello, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello, > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote: >> Rationale: the watch files are meant to keep track of upstream and if >> there's a newer version not being reported by the watch file it means >> that it needs to be fixed. >> >> Please note that this situation often occurs when the maintainer didn't >> make the watch file strip some +VCSrevNNNNN that was added to the Debian >> Version. >> >> If nobody objects I'll start filling (in an automated way since there are >> no false positives) reports on the 307 source packages which report a >> Debian upstream version higher than Upstream version by the watch file. > > I do object. I don't think it's really important to complicate watch files > to strip .dfsg or +svnXXXX that are addded by Debian maintainers. The most > important thing with watch files is that a new upstream version is > detected... but it's not important if the report says that Debian is newer > than upstream when in fact we're at the same version.
Ack, what about only reporting (thus in a non automated way) on those which are not affected by any repackaging/similar version part? Some examples: package|Debian Version|Reported upstream version|Debian upstream version xrn|9.02-7.1|1|9.02 swfdec-gnome|2.21.90-2|0.5.5|2.21.90 conduit|0.3.6-2|0.3.4|0.3.6 diction|uupdate|1.11|uupdate eject|2.1.5-6|2.1.0|2.1.5 epiphany|0.7.0-1|0.6.1|0.7.0 at-spi|1.21.5-1|1.20.1|1.21.5 glib2.0|2.15.5-1|2.14.6|2.15.5 ...and so on > > And when we have +svnXXXX we are indeed newer than the upstream released > tarball and the information is correct! So stripping that part would be a > mistake. IMHO it would be better to strip that part with a dversionmangle. However, DEHS currently compares with $upstream le $debian so those packages are marked as up to date. > > Cheers, Cheers, Raphael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
