On 09.02.2018 17:02, Ian Jackson wrote: > Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is > bumped"): >> You say upstream version. But I'd say that rollbacks are exactly that: >> reuse of a different epoch with the same upstream version. Like what >> happened to imagemagick multiple times. > > I don't know precisely what you mean by "rollback". If you mean > "change our mind about uploading foo new upstream version 3, and go > back to foo upstream version 2", I would not encourage use of an epoch > for that. I would upload foo version "3+really2". This is ugly but > fits much better into everything.
But how is that better than using an epoch? I fully understand why Ubuntu has to use this scheme because they can't use epochs. But we can. Why isn't this a legitimate case to use one? Kind regards Philipp Kern