On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 13:09:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
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
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
On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 20:18:44 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 03:33:30PM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 09:55:09PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
And not, we do not have epochs to temporarily downgrade a package
after a botched upload.
c.f.
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:09:27PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
Also as it can be seen on the archive, once
a version has been tainted (!?), uploaders tend to lower their
resistance to increase the epoch even further.
But once an epoch has been added, there is (arguably?) no problems with
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:00:52AM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
But once an epoch has been added, there is (arguably?) no problems with
increasing it further.
You're not really increasing ugliness in that case, but you are
still screwing with any extant versioned relationships.
--
To
5 matches
Mail list logo
