Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...
Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
> On 23 Jun 1998, James Troup wrote:
>
> > (Sorry for the AOL, but...) Well said; I wish people would get
> > over their epoch-phobia already.
>
> And I wish people would stop suggesting a poor solution.
How is it a ``poor'' solution?
I'll tell you what _is_ poor and that's the absurd suggestion that we
abandon the convenience of dpkg and friends and force people to do by
hand upgrades of several (including an essential one) packages.
> Epochs are not, were never, intended to be used for this
> purpose. They are only for dealing with upstream renumbering that
> would cause conflicts.
Wrong.
| It is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of older
| versions of a package, and also a package's previous version
| numbering schemes, to be left behind.
[ Packaging Manual; Chapter 5 ]
> This is not a phobia, but an unwillingness to use the wrong method.
IMO it clearly *is* a phobia; and we are stuck with the
timezones/timezone farce for the same reason.
[ BTW: I'm happy with 2.0.7r; or rather happy with anything other than
2.0.7-1. I'm just annoyed by the recurring debate about epochs
and phobics wanting to bypass them. ]
--
James
~Yawn And Walk North~ http://yawn.nocrew.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: