Re: gcc 3.2 epoch?
Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> writes:
> This makes me wonder: what is so wrong with an epoch ?
> It's mostly invisible to most interfaces,
> and only used internally.
If they were really that invisible, I wouldn't be complaining, 'cause I
wouldn't have noticed the change! Really they _do_ show up, and they're
an ugly wart.
They're also a tiny bit of arbitrary state, which is a bad thing --
really you ought to be able to recreate a functioning debian package
from just the upstream source; epochs prevent that.
Obviously they _are_ sometimes necessary: there's not much else you can
do if the upstream version-numbering scheme changes drastically. But
they shouldn't be necessary just to smooth over minor hiccups in
an otherwise normal sequence of version numbers.
-Miles
--
`Cars give people wonderful freedom and increase their opportunities.
But they also destroy the environment, to an extent so drastic that
they kill all social life' (from _A Pattern Language_)
Reply to: