Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped

["Christian T. Steigies" <cts@debian.org>]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:16:19PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> wrote:
> > Please don't consider the Debian Policy like a stick.  Or a all-kwowing
> > never-wrong oracle.
> 
> Well the maintainer refuses to make the minor change I requested. See
> the latest comments at
> https://bugs.debian.org/887740
> 
> I wish Debian had some form of informal conflict resolution besides
> the Tech Committee.

I am really amazed that you are making such a big deal about this package. 

You still have not convinced me that I did anything wrong with the version
number and you keep ignoring my request for propper official documentation
how to use and not use an epoch.  Maybe you all can read between the lines
of the policy or just magically know how this was intended.  But I can not
read your mind and I assume the majority of regular DDs can neither.  If it
is incorrect to start with the debian revision from scratch after an epoch,
please document it where a regular person can easily find it, especially if
I am not the first person to fall into this trap.  I do not consider this
bug report a suitable place for that (one of my packages has been used
before in an Ubuntu packaging manual to show how to report a bug and nobody
told me about this nor the "bug" until after years somebody finally reported
the bug, is this the plan for moon-buggy and epochs?).

I think the TC has more important problems to solve.  If you want to NMU the
package, go ahead.  I am not going to upload it with a version number which
I think is wrong, but I am not stopping you if you want to do that upload. 

Or we just drop it from Debian, upstream development has stopped years ago.
But that does not fix the problem with lacking documentation...

Christian