Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
> I actually like this. I still think that the aversion people
> have for epochs is rather more than is warranted from the technical
> objections (the mandatory longevity _is_ a technical objection), but
> the -0 approach is elegant.
I mostly agree, but the argument that anything to the right of the
dash should only reflect *Debian* related revisions does hold some
My final take on this is that I would have been happy using epochs,
but I can see that, in cases where we know that we're going to have a
recurring pattern in the upstream sources, it could be considered more
elegant to have a "mini" or "right-side" epoch that's somehow
distinguished from the "major" or "left-side" epoch. The proposal
above accomplishes this, but in a slightly ugly fashion.
It might be a little nicer to just define a "right side" epoch.
So anything to the right of a : that's to the right of the - would be
the mini-epoch, and any package with a :foo at the end automatically
sorted as older than the same version of the package without the :X
(ignoring the debian revision).
(I'd rather use 2.0.7:pre1-1, but we can't because then something like
1:2-4 becomes ambiguous.)
Unfortunately this might require some major dpkg hackery akin to the
hassle we had introducing epochs in the first place, but it would IMO
be a "cleanish" solution to the problem.
I've probably overlooked something obvious, so flame away...
Rob Browning <firstname.lastname@example.org>
PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org