> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 14:55:39 -0600 > From: Richard Laager <rlaager@debian.org> > To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: using epoch to repair versioning of byacc package > > On 1/23/22 10:04, Thomas Dickey wrote: > > In #1003769, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > > 1. The upload introduces an epoch because the upstream version went from > > > yyyymmdd to 2.0.yyyymmdd. Given that the new version scheme seems to > > > have found acceptance in e.g. Fedora /I/ do not see a better way. Could > > > you ask about the epoch on debian-devel (as per policy > > > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#epochs-should-be-used-sparingly > > > ) - TIA. > > > > As background, byacc was packaged by Dave Becket in 2005, switching > > to my ftp area as upstream. In doing that, the versioning of the > > package changed: > > > > from > > -- LaMont Jones <lamont@debian.org> Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:49:09 -0700 > > byacc (1.9.1-1) unstable; urgency=low > > to > > -- Dave Beckett <dajobe@debian.org> Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:14:12 +0100 > > byacc (20050505-1) unstable; urgency=low > > I see no other way to correct this but to add an epoch. agreed. Is there some way to further improve the transition? > As we see in this case, switching from version numbers to date-based > versions is dangerous because it's impossible to go back without an epoch. A > better version would have been something like 1.9.1+20050505. I suspect that providing an interim 1.9.1+20140715 with/without an epoch would have problems going backward. But there might be some way to do that. > Lintian flags on this, but (according to the name and description) only for > new packages: > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/new-package-uses-date-based-version-number > > Personally, I'd like to see that lintian check fire if the date-based > versioning is new. That is, it should fire if the previous changelog entry > did not have a date-based version. yes... but it's a little late for that (I've only learned about these issues in the process of setting up the upgrade). > Even better would be a dak (or whatever ftp-master tool is relevant) hard > fail if going from non-date-based to date-based at the front of the version > string. -- Thomas E. Dickey <dickey@invisible-island.net> https://invisible-island.net ftp://ftp.invisible-island.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature