On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Noel David Torres Taño
<env...@rolamasao.org> wrote:
> On Martes, 7 de mayo de 2013 22:55:39 Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
>> If so, could we add a field to debian/control such as
>> "Supersede-Epoch". If set to 'yes', then dpkg considers this package
>> to have an epoch of infinity for version comparisons. After the next
>> stable is released with this version of the package, then the
>> maintainer could remove the control line "Supersede-Epoch" so that
>> epochs and dpkg behave as before.
>
> What if between the time you supersede in unstable and it disappears with
> oldstable (several years after) you need again to create an epoch?
Use the mechanism of "really":
% apt-cache policy libglib2.0-dev
libglib2.0-dev:
Installed: 2.33.12+really2.32.4-5
Candidate: 2.33.12+really2.32.4-5
Version table:
2.36.1-1 0
1 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ experimental/main amd64 Packages
*** 2.33.12+really2.32.4-5 0
500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages
500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
-mz
--
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/CAOLfK3XWHp4VcQWH_kcQUpFXtpgoDkcFEUC+wV4y=g1vra9...@mail.gmail.com
