Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
> I mostly agree, but the argument that anything to the right of the
> dash should only reflect *Debian* related revisions does hold some
> water.

The question is: is it being used to bail out a maintainer who didn't
take other steps to deal with the version information or not?

>   2.0.7-1:alpha
>   2.0.7-1:pre1
>   etc.
> 
> 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).

Er.. but this violates least surprise. You'd expect that the 1: to the
left of alpha would have higher precedence than the :alpha.

I'd prefer to see

2.0.7-alpha:1
2.0.7-pre:1

> 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.

Yep, but (assuming we don't want to violate least surprise) we could
use a subset of its functionality right now, with the existing sorting
rules.

-- 
Raul


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org