Am 2. Juli 2024 01:59:26 MESZ schrieb Alec Leamas <leamas.a...@gmail.com>: >Soren et. al., > >On 02/07/2024 01:31, Soren Stoutner wrote: >> Alec, >> >> >> If upstream wants to fix this problem, they could just make their next >> release >> version 9000, with the one after that either being 9001 or 9000.1. >> >> Or, possibly, they could encourage everyone to uninstall the PPA package >> before installing an official one. For example, release a new package to >> their >> PPA that displays a message encouraging everyone to uninstall the PPA >> package, >> remove the PPA from their list of repositories, and *then* install the >> official >> one. >> >> As a general rule, I wouldn’t expect a user to keep a PPA package installed >> when switching to an official package. There is generally no guarantee that >> upgrading from a PPA package to an official one will work without errors. >> >> Or, once the official package had entered the system, they could instruct >> users >> to remove the PPA from their list of repositories and then perform a >> downgrade. >> >> All of that being said, Debian could use an epoch to fix the problem. Having >> an epoch on a package isn’t the worst thing that has ever happened. >> >So, at least three possible paths: > >1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official >packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like 5.10.x > >2. Use versions like 9000.5.10, 9000.5.12. etc. > >3. Use an epoch. > >Of these I would say that 1. is a **very** hard sell upstream. Users are used >to just update and will try, fail and cause friction. > >2. and 3. both adds something which must be kept forever. Given this choice I >tend to think that the epoch is the lesser evil, mostly because the package >version could match the "real" version. > >That is, the idea that next opencpn release officially would be 9000.5.10 just >won't fly. 2. would be about using package versions with a number prefix like >9000. which is not really visible to users. And that means an impedance >problem between the upstream version and the packaged one. A problem the epoch >does not have. > >--alec >
[Currently on my phone with no direct access to my Debian mail jre.wine...@gmail.com, but annoying autocorrect and topposting instead] You may avoid the epoch if upstream is willing to provide a separate package for about 2 years. (I did something similar to get rid of an epoch in Ubuntu's wine packages a few years ago, replacing them with our Debian packages): package 9000.5.10 Depends: package-transition-to-new-versioning package-transition-to-new-versioning 5.9.2-1 In 2 years: package-transition-to-new-versioning 5.9.2-2 Depends: package 5.9.2-2 You'll also need some breaks/replaces in Debian's packages. I might dig out the details later if your interested.
