[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...

>>"Gregory" == Gregory S Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:

 Gregory> Here's another reason using the epoch for this situation is
 Gregory> bad, if you continue the process you get something like:

 Gregory>   2.0.6
 Gregory>   2.0.7pre1
 Gregory> 1:2.0.7
 Gregory> 1:2.0.8pre1
 Gregory> 2:2.0.8
 Gregory> 2:2.0.9pre1
 Gregory> 3:2.0.10
 Gregory> 3:2.0.10pre1
 Gregory> 4:2.0.11
 Gregory> ...

 Gregory> Essentially you are completely overriding the version number
 Gregory> with a hidden version number that the user isn't presented
 Gregory> with.

	Yes. But in this case, humans already know that 2.0.9pre1 is
 lower than 2.0.10; so the epochs merely make this clear to dpkg as
 well. epochs can be misused to create a bogus ordering, but in this
 case I think this is the system working as designed. 

 Gregory> If we want to go this route we could just abandon
 Gregory> sorting on upstream package version and number our releases
 Gregory> sequentially. That may not be an unreasonable way to go, but
 Gregory> it certainly isn't the system we're using now.

	Oh, simmer down. This method makes sure that human readable
 upstream version numbers are also understood by dpkg. We are not just
 subverting the ordering; we are ensuring that upstream version sort
 correctly for Debian.


 "The time for action is past!  Now is the time for senseless
 bickering!" Ashleigh Brilliant
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: