On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:42:29 +0600 Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@wrar.name> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:33:15AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > Thanks for trading the R release cycle with Debian's and for > > > delaying the release. The harm has already been done, so somebody > > > should probably go and create a transition tracker for it? > > > > Rather than accept the harm, surely the release team could simply roll > > back the upload in some manner? > Only by uploading older versions with bumped version numbers, and that > still will cause testing and unstable to have different binaries. That is why we have epochs - an epoch is ignored for the purposes of the binary packages, see zlib1g and other packages using epochs. The existing tools have sane support for epochs, exactly to avoid these problems. http://packages.debian.org/sid/zlib1g 1:1.2.7.dfsg-13 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/pool/main/z/zlib/zlib1g_1.2.7.dfsg-13_amd64.deb dpkg -l | grep ':' The version currently in wheezy could be re-uploaded with a single change to the changelog to start using an epoch and using the version string currently in wheezy for the post-epoch string of the new version. If wheezy had foo 1.2.3-1 and unstable 2.0.0-1, the epoch version of 1.2.3 would be 1:1.2.3-1 which is newer than 2.0.0-1 but be compatible with 1.2.3-1 already in wheezy. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpa9e71ldbPM.pgp
Description: PGP signature