Quoting Pirate Praveen (2022-08-20 23:01:07) > > > On ശ, ഓഗ 20, 2022 at 3:53 വൈകു, Holger Levsen > <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 03:29:59PM +0000, Stefano Rivera wrote: > >> > > Epochs cause problems, [...] > >> > which are? (I agree they are ugly and should often be avoided, > >> but I don't > >> > see any unsolved problems with them, which is why I'm asking.) > >> The standard one is that people use them to revert an upload. > > > > ok, I agree that's bad. (but not the case here.) > > > >> But, epochs aren't used in the upstream tarball filename, so you > >> then > >> easily get a conflict between the old and the new one. > > > > I'd replace 'easily' with 'theoretically in rare cases' but I can see > > how > > this is a valid point, sometimes. > > I think the only real consequence for this is a dak reject which can be > fixed by a new upload with +debian suffix. > > Say when upstream again release 22.3 version, 1:22.3 orig.tar will have > a different checksum from 22.3 orig.tar. If at all dak keeps history of > the tar after so many releases. At that point, just uploading > 1:22.3+debian will allow dak to accept the new tarball. Am I missing > something here? > > If this is indeed the case, it feels like many people are blindly > chanting epoch is evil without really understanding what is at stake > really. What I find bad about epochs is that declaring dependencies becomes tricky: When you need to declare a "newer than" dependency it is easy to miss the need for the epoch prefix, and the mistake easily goes unnoticed. I dislike your accusation that your fellow developers are cluelessly ranting about this. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature