Hi! On Thu, 2024-11-07 at 01:15:08 +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > Source: python-catalogue > Version: 2.1.0-6 > Severity: normal > X-Debbugs-Cc: Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> https://pypi.org/project/catalogue/#history shows that 2.1.0 was yanked > from PyPI, but it's what we currently have in Debian. Some of the more > recent releases (which I think are really in the same version series - > it's just that upstream changed their minds about bumping the patch > version) contain fixes that we should have in Debian; in particular > while trying to fix python-srsly I ran into a problem which I think is > fixed by > https://github.com/explosion/catalogue/commit/75f5e9c24e93b5fcc2b3e9f324d9328bc871abad. > I'm happy to do the work to get us onto a newer version, but I wanted to > check what to use for the version scheme. Should we use > 2.1.0+really2.0.10-1 or 1:2.0.10-1? I think there'd be some > justification for an epoch here since the upstream version numbering > scheme changed (cf. > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-version), > but I'm copying debian-devel as per policy on epoch proposals. The way I see it, this does not look like a version schema change to me, upstream released a version that they then retracted: https://github.com/explosion/catalogue/issues/46 Given that I assume the current (non-retracted) upstream version is going to be close to surpass the retracted one, I'd go for the +really hack. In this case invalidating relationships for external dependencies would not seem like a big issue, because it looks like the yanked version is the only one that has ever been in Debian, but it avoids the ugliness and confusion of epochs (people tend to forget to add the epoch in relationships for example) and its stickiness, going forward. The other question that comes to mind is why the yanked version was uploaded, as from that issue above it seems at that time it should have already been marked as yanked. Perhaps we have some automated tool that does not honor the yanked markings, which might deserve a bug report? Andreas do you recall what tool or process you used for that? Thanks, Guillem
