Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#463039: why does octave3.0 provide: octave2.9?

[Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail@gmail.com>]

On 04/02/08 18:09 +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [2008-02-03 16:32]:
> 
> What should you do know?  It is clear from the discussion in this bug report
> that the current Conflicts/Replaces/Provides setting is not appropriate.
> However, if we generate dummy octave2.9* packages then we will have to
> reintroduced the infamous epoch in the version number, which we were trying
> to avoid.

I'd say we simply let octave2.9 die. I'm pretty confident people will find
octave3.0 by themselves.

I don't consider the epoch to be that kind of a problem, but I don't want to
continue with the virtual octave package. At one point, we probably will
recommend switching to Octave 3.1. But I think users should make that switch
consciously and not because they happen to have "octave" installed.

So, the virtual "octave" package should be dropped. Getting rid of the epoch
is a bonus.

  Thomas