Re: Bug#645895: ftp.debian.org: epoch should be part of the .deb file name
]] Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
| On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > The first and obvious one is to avoid file name clashes in the
| > archive. Another one is so the version number in the file name actually
| > is the version number of the package which makes it less confusing when
| > you need to download a package with an epoch by hand for whatever
| > reason.
| It will also break random scripts out there, so we might actually want to
| have it very clear on how much benefit we'd get from this change.
Yes. And some are probably broken because they think that the files are
named $package_$version_$arch.deb and don't strip the epoch.
| > You shouldn't trust the file name to contain the version number anyway.
| What would be the point of it all, then?
That tools handling .debs can't trust the file name to match the package
and version doesn't mean we shouldn't generate packages where the name
matches the package and version.
| We have never had a filename version clash. Even if it would
| eventually happen, it is best that the maintainer bring it up for some
| brainstorming, because it CAN cause a lot of annoyance (people are NOT
| often aware of epochs).
I'm not sure we've never had a clash. The maintainer might well just
have worked around it silently.
| > | I think we should not have % characters in .deb filenames if at all
| > | possible.
| > Why not? Are there any tools that have trouble with % characters in
| > file names?
| Well, while % is xml/xhtml/html-friendly, it is *not* http-friendly, and
| will require double-encoding.
Yes, that's somewhat ugly. You already have to handle % encoded links
for anything pointing to packages with version numbers including ~
though, so this won't make any difference there.
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are