> > Epochs often cause more problems than they solve, one should not use > > them too lightweight, as you will never be able to get rid of them > > again. That 1.4 is after 1.32 (and not 28 releases before) means that > > upstream seems to use some strange numbering sheme based on decimal > > fractions. There are good chances this will happen again in the future, > > so instead of using an epoch, normalizing that to usual natural numbers > > by making that a 1.40 could have expressed the situation more clearly > > (and avoid similar problems in the future). But alas, it is to late, > > the epoch is in the archive, it can never ever go away now... > > I agree, I see now that problem is the epoch Maybe a package renaming would eliminate epoch?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.