On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 17:27 +0100, Magnus Holmgren wrote: > A quick question I dare not ask -devel: Don't be scared of -devel (it's usually -private or -policy where the real flamefests happen). :-) > When a certain version of a certain binary package has been uploaded to > unstable, can a lower version be uploaded after the offending version has > been removed by the FTP masters, or is it absolutely necessary to add an > epoch? Whatever the situation with the archives, don't forget any users who have installed the other package. > Normally, when uploading the wrong version of your own package, you'd use the > epoch, but in this particular case a package, dkim-milter, was allowed > through NEW despite building a binary package of the same name as one from a > similar but unrelated package, libdkim. (The offending binary packages were > later renamed.) OK, it's not nice being forced into this by someone else but mistakes happen and an epoch isn't a sign of bad maintenance and does not infer anything "negative" about a package. > > See http://packages.debian.org/sid/libdkim-dev for the resulting mess. The fact that the "mess" is still apparent means that the epoch is essential. You don't have control over users of unofficial ports, derived distributions or local mirrors - all places where the old version can hang around for a very long time. Set the epoch, conflict and replace the other version and leave it at that. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part