bzr-builder does not take epoch into consideration when using {debupstream} in recipe
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bzr-builder |
Triaged
|
Low
|
Unassigned | ||
| bzr-builder (Ubuntu) |
Triaged
|
Low
|
Unassigned | ||
Bug Description
Binary package hint: bzr-builder
Hi
When you use {debupstream} in recipes, it seems the epoch from the changelog is left out.I consider this to be a bug since the resulting version is less than the one in the archives effectively rendering the package useless since apt will always prefer 1:foo over foo.
Also, {debupstream} is designed to take in the debian version without modifications, disregarding the epoch from the package version fails the purpose of {debupstream}
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: bzr-builder (not installed)
ProcVersionSign
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-14-generic x86_64
NonfreeKernelMo
Architecture: amd64
Date: Thu Aug 5 22:46:06 2010
InstallationMedia: Kubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Alpha amd64 (20100727)
ProcEnviron:
LANGUAGE=
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: bzr-builder
| James Westby (james-w) wrote | #1 |
| Changed in bzr-builder: | |
| status: | New → Triaged |
| importance: | Undecided → Low |
| Changed in bzr-builder (Ubuntu): | |
| status: | New → Triaged |
| importance: | Undecided → Low |
| Reinhard Tartler (siretart) wrote | #2 |
Hi,
Thanks for the bug report.
We'll see what other issues people have around epochs and decide which way
to go, whether changing the existing variable, adding a new one, or something
else.
Thanks,
James