Re: epoch fix?

[Matt Zagrabelny <mzagrabe@d.umn.edu>]

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Noel David Torres Taño
<envite@rolamasao.org> wrote:
> On Martes, 7 de mayo de 2013 22:55:39 Matt Zagrabelny wrote:

>> If so, could we add a field to debian/control such as
>> "Supersede-Epoch". If set to 'yes', then dpkg considers this package
>> to have an epoch of infinity for version comparisons. After the next
>> stable is released with this version of the package, then the
>> maintainer could remove the control line "Supersede-Epoch" so that
>> epochs and dpkg behave as before.

>
> What if between the time you supersede in unstable and it disappears with
> oldstable (several years after) you need again to create an epoch?

Use the mechanism of "really":

% apt-cache policy libglib2.0-dev
libglib2.0-dev:
  Installed: 2.33.12+really2.32.4-5
  Candidate: 2.33.12+really2.32.4-5
  Version table:
     2.36.1-1 0
          1 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ experimental/main amd64 Packages
 *** 2.33.12+really2.32.4-5 0
        500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages
        500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
        500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

-mz