On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 11:59:00PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > > > After some thought, I tend to think that adding an epoch is the right > > > thing > > > here. > > > > > > The Policy [1] says: > > > --- > > > Epochs can help when the upstream version numbering scheme changes, but > > > they > > > must be used with care. You should not change the epoch, even in > > > experimental, without getting consensus on debian-devel first. > > > --- > > > > > > With all this said: Is this a case where using a epoch is justified? If > > > not, > > > why? > > > > Adding epochs to work around 3rd-party repo version problems sounds quite > > wrong. > > We don't even add epochs that Ubuntu itself adds. > > > > But this is not about third parties, it's about upstream which publishes PPA > packages.
I don't think it matters that they are published by the upstream. Similarly to the versions issue you are not required to guarantee smooth upgrades from 3rd-party packages and other such things. > I also hesitate to add an epoch, after all they are basically considered > evil. But if we should not use them when upstream has a broken versioning we > are about to replace, when should we use it? When upstream had a broken versioning *that we used in Debian*. > I have good relations with upstream, and they are willing to abandon the > current broken versioning in favor of something sane. But the legacy is > there, and we need to handle it. Again, it's just questionable to me if we *need* to handle upgrades from non-Debian packages. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
