Re: Epoch usage conventions (was Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Epoch usage conventions (was Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)
- From: Guillem Jover <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 16:35:35 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20130504143535.GB11980@gaara.hadrons.org>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20130331201447.GA20729@spike.0x539.de> <20130401053315.GA4159@sumost.ca> <20130401114229.GB6201@belkar.wrar.name> <email@example.com> <20130402131824.GA10316@frosties> <20130402195509.GB18117@spike.0x539.de> <20130403093330.GA6592@belkar.wrar.name> <20130403181844.GC22545@spike.0x539.de> <20130404180927.GA31959@gaara.hadrons.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 13:09:51 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes ("Epoch usage conventions (was Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R)"):
> > Well, I strongly disagree that in general using epochs for packaging
> > mistakes is a good practice (and I've thought so even before Ubuntu
> > existed). The main purpose of epochs is to be able to handle mistakes
> > or changes in the version numbering itself. Say upstream resets their
> > versioning from v450 to 0.0.0, or from date based 20130404 to 0.0.0
> > (although the packager could have avoided that by prefixing with "0."),
> > or if they used something like 1.210 and they meant 1.2.10 (svgalib),
> > or a package takes over another's name (git).
> I agree entirely with what Guillem says.
> > Also, introducing an epoch where there was none in an NMU should be
> > frowned upon, unfortunately I've seen multiple instances of these in
> > the recent past, something I'd be very upset if it happened to any of
> > the packages I maintain.
> I wonder if this should be explicitly stated in the dev ref.
Yeah, I guess, I'll try to come up with a patch in the next weeks
(added to my TODO list).