Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 01:57:16PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 14 février 2018 12:53 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian..org> :
>
> >> > Would it hurt to take those epoch bumps into Debian?
> >>
> >> Depends on what you mean by hurt. I see epochs being used w/o much
> >> tought or care, on many situations where they are not supposed to be
> >> used, and they are permanent stigmas.
> >
> > I wonder where this representation of "epoch" as a "stigma" comes from.
> > They're a part of a version number. They're as much a stigma as the "57"
> > in "libavcodec57". What's the big deal? Just use it if you need to, and
> > be done with it.
> >
> > There's really really really nothing wrong with using an epoch. If some
> > of our (or someone else's) infrastructure has issues dealing with them,
> > then that's a bug in the infrastructure and we should fix it. But nobody
> > should be afraid of using an epoch when the upstream version number
> > changes incompatibly, because *that's what they're for*.
>
> It's not only an infrastructure problem. If you Depends on X (>= 1.8),
> this will be true with X 1:1.6 as well.
Well, obviously, because 1:1.6 is larger than 1.8, according to our
versioning rules.
I agree that the epoch not being in the file name makes that unexpected,
but that's a bug in whatever decides that filename, not in the use of
the epoch.
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
Reply to: