Conversation
|
@coleplx Thank you for helping improve fpm! I think I'd like some more information -- Your summary talks about the acceptable values for versions, but your patch affects the package name not the version pattern. I may be forgetting or misreading some parts of the Debian docs, though. Can you show me an example where fpm is telling you about an invalid relationship field? I'd like to get this fixed :) |
|
Hey @jordansissel, I wonder if I misunderstood the docs. 🤔 That's quite possible given I'm not usually working with this kind of stuff. Here's the issue I faced when packaging ImageMagick-7: I'm checking the docs again now: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-package
Hmmm, so yeah, my PR is a bit wrong. I added the After the latest patch: And for future reference, the partial FPM command used: |
I faced an issue packaging ImageMagick for Ubuntu 20.04 where
fpmcomplained about an invalid relationship field for a package.According to https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#version, I believe the field should support more characters.
Also, according to https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#syntax-of-relationship-fields,