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

Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...



> On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> 
> > 
> > until 2.1.0 comes out, so that we wouldn't need to use a ``dirty, 
> > evil epoch''.
> 
> No one has said anything about dirt or evil with respect to epochs.

Sorry, I was being facetious, and I forgot the ;-)

> Policy says not to use them for this purpose. It also says not to use
> pre-release numbering schemes. Which doesn't leave much wiggle room.

Hm.  So how would you deal with the 2.0.99.9.1 example, without epochs ?

I think when policy says that it means ``premeditated use of epochs'' is a bad 
way of dealing with silly ``pre'' upstream versions.

If you issue a ``pre'' version by mistake, as happened in this case, it 
recommends that you get yourself out of the hole with an epoch.

> Brandon Mitchell has come up with a better scheme than my "numbering"
> alternative. Consider the following:
> 
> 2.0.8pre1	2.0.8-0pre1
> 2.0.8pre2	2.0.8-0pre2
> 2.0.8           2.0.8-1

Doesn't this mean that the upstream source will be called:

  packagename_2.0.8.orig.tar.gz

the upstream author might have something to say about that, since it looks 
like a final release, and they've only published:

  packagename-2.0.8pre2.tgz

Cheers, Phil.


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


Reply to: