Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
>> I'm still really vague on what REAL technical objection has been raised to
>> actually using (oh, horror!) epochs. Yes, it will remain in the version
>> number "forever". So what? Who cares? If the epoch reaches 50, who is
>> going to notice and care? The reason we use the upstream version numbers is
>> for recognition. If they don't fit, we use epochs and be done with it. The
>> version numbers are recognisable in the filenames, and dpkg knows which
>> comes first. I see that as a good thing.
Philip> While I've got no objection to epoch's I do object to their
Philip> premeditated misuse, which I believe is what you are
Philip> suggesting.
I think this is where we disagree. I do not think epochs are
being misused here, though I also believe that epocs are not
mandated.
Philip> The ``put the painful bit after the dash in the debian
Philip> version'' suggestion is no good I'm afraid, because the
Philip> orig.tar.gz ends up giving the impression that Debian has the
Philip> release version already, whereas it's just the pre-release
Philip> version with a bogus name.
Well, yes, the source file does do that. The .deb files do
too, unless one is aware that the -0pre means a pre-release.
Ulp. I had not considered the source dist, and maybe we
should.
In balance, 2.0.7.99.1 seems to be the least kludgey.
manoj
--
"An open mind has but one disadvantage: it collects dirt." a saying
at RPI
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: