Re: epoch fix?
On 05/08/2013 06:30 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> # in unstable
> Package: bar
> Build-Depends: libfoo-dev (>= 1.5)
> The 'bar' maintainer intended to require the unstable version of
> libfoo-dev, but in fact the dependency is satisfied from stable as
Yeah! And this mistake is very easy to make.
I did a similar "woopsie" recently myself with Breaks / Replaces,
(which was quickly solved) even though I quite know what
I was doing, simply because I forgot about the epoch. Of course,
that made the Breaks / Replaces completely useless.
Though, is there a way to fix human brains? I don't think so...
Would having the epoch written in the generated file names
solve the problem? I don't think so either...