Bug#248618: Section 3.2.1 encourages use of epochs

[Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es>]

On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:39:59PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > 
> > Both are ugly, but the latter will be fixed and an epoch is for ever. I
> > hate epochs. Bugs can be fixed but if you get an epoch it'll always be your
> > dead weight.
> 
> I think you're being way too emotional over version numbers :).

Uhm.. well I'm just a bit picky on some things :>

> What if you upload a new upstream, but it is too broken yet, and you
> want to downgrade in Debian? You need an epoch. Or if you simply make a
> mistake? Or a NMU uploads a new upstream version, or a broken version,
> by mistake? It happens.

I would make it "newversion+oldversion". Similar things are done for alpha
or prealpha packages, e.g. "1.2+1.3pre3".

> One only should take care to not choose a version system that will
> require an epoch increase every time.

Well, if we can avoid it without any payload, why not do it?

-- 
Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)