Re: Release-critical Bugreport for March 3, 2000
On Mon 06 Mar 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Paul Slootman wrote:
> > The problem with epochs is that for some reason the epoch isn't included
> > in the filename of the package, whereas the rest of the version number
> > _is_.
> >
> > Any good reason why this is so? Perhaps this could be changed?
>
> Epochs are glue that is needed to make something work. They're not meant to
> be out in the open to confuse users. From the packaging manual:
OK, but currently they _do_ confuse users, as they see version 5.3
being replaced by 1.0 (which is wrong, but the 1.0 has an epoch).
Paul Slootman
--
home: paul@wurtel.demon.nl http://www.wurtel.demon.nl/
work: paul@murphy.nl http://www.murphy.nl/
debian: paul@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
isdn4linux: paul@isdn4linux.de http://www.isdn4linux.de/
Reply to: