Re: epoch fix?

[Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>]

On 2013-05-09 00:25:06 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Let me try to explain where the difference lies. Consider the following
> sequences of uploads:
> 
> foo_4
> foo_5
> foo_1:4
> foo_1:6
> 
> bar_4
> bar_5
> bar_5really4
> bar_6
> 
> Two kind of "bugs" in (build-)dependencies on these packages could happen:
> 
> 1)
> 
> "foo (>= 5)" doesn't guarantee you that you get upstream version 5 or later.
> You need to use "foo (>= 1:5)".

To avoid this bug, shouldn't the epoch be ignored in comparisons for
dependencies (unless this is made explicit)?

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)