Andreas Metzler wrote: > Herbert Xu wrote: > > Andreas Metzlerwrote: > >> cu and- I would not use an epoch unless I was forced to, > >> ugly package versions go, epochs stay forever -reas > > > You know what, version numbers stay forever too. Well, they would > > if it weren't for the epoch... > > Was this so difficult to browse? The ugly version number 1.0rel will > only stay until 1.0.1 or 1.1 is uploaded. OTOH if an epoch was used, > even 6.6.6 would still use it. I think the ugly version numbers being referred to which don't go away unless an epoc is used are the ones that use date strings in less than desirable ways. Such as package-2003110901-1. Getting rid of that version requires an epoc. Or a package name change! If it had been package-snapshot-0.0-0.2003110901 or other of the many such ways to plan ahead then the version would go away without either. In general this is only a problem when people forget to plan ahead. Bob
Attachment:
pgplODB5w0QFQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature