Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 04:29:20PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 14.02.2018 um 16:08 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 01:57:16PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> >> 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.
> > Or with 1.8+really1.6.
>
> But this problem will fix itself (after a release cycle at most). An
> epoch stays around forever.
>
> From personal experience I've seen enough packages which declared a
> dependency on libfoo-dev (x.y) and forgot the epoch.
Then they get a bug filed and the problem is solved.
> epochs in library packages are extremely bad and should be avoided at
> all costs.
I can see why they might be confusing, and I can see why some people
prefer the +really approach, even though I think that's silly.
To go from there to "should be avoided at all costs" is a bit overdoing
it, though.
--
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: