Re: removing epoch slot
> >From the changelog:
>
> * added 1: epoch due to old netcdf-doc package having epoch 1:
> -- Warren Turkal <wt@penguintechs.org> Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:42:18 -0600
Aha! Well, that is indeed historical.
> Not sure what you are referring to by rewrite, but if the all the
> source/binary package names are different then you will be able to
> avoid the epoch.
Nope, the package names stay the same.
I guess then we will have to drag the epoch along with us... :/
--Nico
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Nico Schlömer wrote:
>
>> the old netCDF package [1] has an epoch slot, 1, which seems entirely
>> unnecessary. For the rewrite, it'd be nice if we could get rid of it.
>> Is that common practice? Is there an upgrade path for it?
>
> >From the changelog:
>
> * added 1: epoch due to old netcdf-doc package having epoch 1:
>
> http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/n/netcdf/unstable_changelog
>
> Not sure what you are referring to by rewrite, but if the all the
> source/binary package names are different then you will be able to
> avoid the epoch.
>
> --
> bye,
> pabs
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] CAKTje6EKAFwg7zb4PKh4YRqvBKcP8kBd-7pMbHt0rxr5tL4Ytg@mail.gmail.com">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] CAKTje6EKAFwg7zb4PKh4YRqvBKcP8kBd-7pMbHt0rxr5tL4Ytg@mail.gmail.com
>
Reply to: