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

Re: Version for a returning package



On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:40:14PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2012-05-13 11:49 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 
> > Mike Hommey, le Sun 13 May 2012 11:16:13 +0200, a écrit :
> >> 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)
> >
> > There are installed systems which upgraded from sarge up to squeeze
> > which can still have the old package installed.
> 
> For the packages in question this is quite unlikely, since their
> successors libnspr4-0d and libnss3-0d declared conflicts on them.

That's true. For instance, libnspr4-0d 4.7.1-3 to 4.8.4-1 had such
conflicts. Release-wise, this means the conflict was there in Lenny
only. (libnspr4-dev had a conflict on libnspr4 before that, but that
can't really count)

> Accordingly, neither libnspr4 nor libnss3 show up on
> http://popcon.debian.org/unknown/by_inst, so I think leaving out the
> epoch is fine.  Not sure if dak will agree, though.

They actually show up in http://popcon.debian.org/by_inst.gz
22166 libnspr4                         106     1     0     0   105 (Not in sid)                    
22613 libnss3                          101     5    12     0    84 (Not in sid)                    

Sounds like it would be safer to go with an epoch.

Mike


Reply to: