> Here's another reason using the epoch for this situation is bad, if you > continue the process you get something like: > > 2.0.6 > 2.0.7pre1 > 1:2.0.7 > 1:2.0.8pre1 > 2:2.0.8 > 2:2.0.9pre1 > 3:2.0.10 > 3:2.0.10pre1 > 4:2.0.11 > ...
No, that's not what happens at all. It's more like this: 2.0.6-1 2.0.6-2 2.0.7pre1-1 2.0.7pre2-1 Doh! (maintainer thinks: ``I just used a version number that will clearly cause a sequence problem. Oh well, this is the situation epochs were created for, but I'll have to think of an alternative the next time) 1:2.0.7-1 1:2.0.7-2 1:2.0.8-0pre1.1 1:2.0.8-0pre1.2 1:2.0.8-0pre1.2.1 (NMU) 1:2.0.8-1 etc. <RANT> If people weren't being childish about the addition of 2 characters to the changelog, which the users generally never see, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think we need a policy statement saying that packages uploaded with kludgey version numbers (that are clearly there to avoid the introduction of an epoch) will not be allowed into the archive. Otherwise we will be getting a repeat of this discussion on a bi-monthly basis for all future time. People make mistakes choosing version numbers, and we have a mechanism for recovering these mistakes. People being ``inventive'' so they can maintain the aesthetic beauty of a control file that is rarely seen by anyone is a waste of all our time. Use the tools provided! </RANT> Hmm. I feel better for that :-) Cheers, Phil. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
