Re: gcc 3.2 epoch?
Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> *if* *I* started a new system from scratch, I
> would have 2 entities for each source/binary package:
> - Debian package version, based entirely on the Debian revision, and
> not based on the upstream version
> - upstream package version, stored as an attribute within the package
> - Reduces or eliminates the need for epochs.
Actually all you've done is made epochs mandatory...
The thing is that it's _nice_ to have the debian version number related
to the upstream version number, it makes things seem more concrete and
I don't even really mind epochs if they're used when sparingly, it's the
[apparently] increasing casual use of them that grates on my nerves;
it's sort of like your programmer's spider-sense tingling when you see
duplicated code all over the place.
P.S. All information contained in the above letter is false,
for reasons of military security.