Guillem Jover writes ("Epoch usage conventions (was Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)"): > Well, I strongly disagree that in general using epochs for packaging > mistakes is a good practice (and I've thought so even before Ubuntu > existed). The main purpose of epochs is to be able to handle mistakes > or changes in the version numbering itself. Say upstream resets their > versioning from v450 to 0.0.0, or from date based 20130404 to 0.0.0 > (although the packager could have avoided that by prefixing with "0."), > or if they used something like 1.210 and they meant 1.2.10 (svgalib), > or a package takes over another's name (git).
I agree entirely with what Guillem says. > Also, introducing an epoch where there was none in an NMU should be > frowned upon, unfortunately I've seen multiple instances of these in > the recent past, something I'd be very upset if it happened to any of > the packages I maintain. I wonder if this should be explicitly stated in the dev ref. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20830.48911.568030.146...@chiark.greenend.org.uk