Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...
Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 11:54:05AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > In both these examples the "cludge" only hangs around for a while, while
> > the epoch gets stuck on the version forever.
>
> Is it really that bad? You said you don't want the clutter of it but
> I can't really see how there is much clutter. I find Santiago's
> suggestion of a manual upgrade absurd.
Here's another reason using the epoch for this situation is bad, if you
continue the process you get something like:
2.0.6
2.0.7pre1
1:2.0.7
1:2.0.8pre1
2:2.0.8
2:2.0.9pre1
3:2.0.10
3:2.0.10pre1
4:2.0.11
...
Essentially you are completely overriding the version number with a hidden
version number that the user isn't presented with. If we want to go this route
we could just abandon sorting on upstream package version and number our
releases sequentially. That may not be an unreasonable way to go, but it
certainly isn't the system we're using now.
greg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: