Hello Samuel and Peter,
On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 01:00 +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote:
> From Sven:
> > To comply with DEP-14, I just created the branch debian/latest and
> > intend to drop the branch debian/sid eventually.
> > Can you please set debian/latest to 'default' and 'protected'? I don't
> > have the rights to do this.
>
> Awesome, I've done these changes and also gave you Maintainer
> permissions to the repo.
Thanks a lot!
> From Peter:
> > as you suspect the Linitian tag is only emitted if the number of
> > changelog entries is one. The reason is that it is too late to switch to
> > the suggested versioning scheme after the first upload. Once an upload
> > with a date-based versioning scheme has been done, an epoch likely needs
> > to be introduced in case upstream switches to a conventional versioning
> > scheme. Therefore this Lintian hint become pointless after the first
> > upload. Still the reasoning to avoid prefix-less date-based versioning
> > schemes remains valid.
>
> Peter is correct, the main thing to have in mind is that having the
> package version starting with "0~" is much less painful than dealing
> with an epoch, so the lintian is hinting towards the idea that all
> calver-versioned packages should be versioned like that (with "0~").
>
> For the record, I remember Raphaƫl once mentioning on this list that
> epochs are also troublesome for derivatives, but I don't know the
> details on that (and it was a few years ago).
>
> Still, if you think there's an issue with this versioning (that
> overcomes the benefit of it), Sven, feel free to raise your concerns
> and we can drop it if it makes sense.
My only concern would be to stay as close as possible with upstream and
other distributions, Considering your arguments, I will retain the
current versioning scheme.
Thank you for your thoughts, Peter and Samuel!
--
GPG Fingerprint
3DF5 E8AA 43FC 9FDF D086 F195 ADF5 0EDA F8AD D585
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part