Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...
Hi,
>>"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.
manoj
--
"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: