On 12-05-13 at 12:16pm, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:16:13AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > I'm going to reintroduce unversioned libnspr4 and libnss3 for > > various reasons. These packages used to exist in the Debian archive, > > but the last time they were seen was in sarge. The first release > > *not* including them was etch. This is quite some time ago. > > > > The versions they had by then had an epoch. Supposedly, to make the > > new versions greater than these, I have to add an epoch. But do I > > really need to care about making the new versions greater than these > > packages last seen 4 years ago? (sarge EOL was in 2008) > > When fixing remaining insserv issues on my boxes recently, I found a > woody era gem. And that's an init script, not something harmless like > an obsolete library. > > Dropping the epoch would cause mysterious failures, for no gains other > than some aesthetics. I'm afraid epochs are indeed forever. Good point. It might make sense to take even obsolete package releases into account if those old releases included conffiles which would cause trouble for the newly installed packaging release. ...but that's an issue of which hashes of conffiles to support migrating from, more than one of package version numbers to support... ...and probably doesn't affect libraries as in question here. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature