Hello,
On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for
>epoch bump [and 2 more messages]"):
>> On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > When we get to tidying this up, the epoch-ignoring new fi
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch
bump [and 2 more messages]"):
> On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > When we get to tidying this up, the epoch-ignoring new file name
> > uniqueness section could probably do with a cro
Hello,
On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> When we get to tidying this up, the epoch-ignoring new file name
> uniqueness section could probably do with a cross-reference.
Do you mean 3.2.2?
> I did decide to make the text discouraging epochs a subsection.
This is good. I'm also glad you
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump
[and 2 more messages]"):
> Control: tags -1 + patch
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Please find attached a diff against current
> master.
The attachment seems to have got lost. Sorry, here it i
Control: tags -1 + patch
Thanks for the feedback. Please find attached a diff against current
master.
Mattia Rizzolo writes ("Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch
bump"):
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:26:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > + Epochs should not u
Hello,
On Mon, Feb 26 2018, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> This needs to be reworded. "the +really convention" is probably not
> really policy material (feels more like devref's) and therfore probably
> not mentioned here.
I disagree. Policy often describes conventions; in particular,
conventions tha
Hello Ian,
On Fri, Feb 23 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We had another thread on debian-devel recently, in which it once again
> became evident that epochs are misunderstood. Epoch bumps should be
> rare and there are often better solutions. I suggest that we should
> ask people to consult debian-
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:26:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Concretely,
>
> epoch
>
> This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be
> omitted, in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the
> upstream_version may not contain any colons.
> -
>
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch
bump"):
> I also ended up writing a new dpkg FAQ entry, given that thread:
>
>
> <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q:_What_are_version_epochs_and_why_and_when_are_they_needed.3F>
Hi!
On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 13:26:01 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.1.3.0
> We had another thread on debian-devel recently, in which it once again
> became evident that epochs are misunderstood. Epoch bumps should be
> rare and there are often better solutions. I
David Bremner writes ("Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump"):
> I find the existing use of the debian-devel list in policy strange, and
> am unenthusiastic about expanding it. It's not a "must-read" list for
> debian contributors, and it is (
Ian Jackson writes:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.1.3.0
>
> We had another thread on debian-devel recently, in which it once again
> became evident that epochs are misunderstood. Epoch bumps should be
> rare and there are often better solutions. I suggest that we should
> ask people to
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.1.3.0
We had another thread on debian-devel recently, in which it once again
became evident that epochs are misunderstood. Epoch bumps should be
rare and there are often better solutions. I suggest that we should
ask people to consult debian-devel.
Also we shou
13 matches
Mail list logo