Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump [and 2 more messages]
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump [and 2 more messages]"):
> Control: tags -1 + patch
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Please find attached a diff against current
> master.
The attachment seems to have got lost. Sorry, here it is.
Ian.
diff --git a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
index 0771346..166cdd8 100644
--- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
+++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst
@@ -552,9 +552,10 @@ The three components here are:
omitted, in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the
``upstream_version`` may not contain any colons.
- It is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of older
- versions of a package, and also a package's previous version
- numbering schemes, to be left behind.
+ Epochs can help when the upstream version numbering scheme
+ changes, but they must be used with care. You should not change
+ the epoch, even in experimental, without getting consensus on
+ debian-devel first.
``upstream_version``
This is the main part of the version number. It is usually the
@@ -622,9 +623,23 @@ These two steps (comparing and removing initial non-digit strings and
initial digit strings) are repeated until a difference is found or both
strings are exhausted.
-Note that the purpose of epochs is to allow us to leave behind mistakes
-in version numbering, and to cope with situations where the version
-numbering scheme changes. It is *not* intended to cope with version
+Epochs should be used sparingly
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+Note that the purpose of epochs is to cope with situations where the
+upstream version numbering scheme changes and to allow us to leave
+behind serious mistakes.
+If you think that increasing the epoch is the right solution,
+you should consult debian-devel and get consensus before doing so
+(even in experimental).
+
+Epochs should not be used when a package needs to be rolled back.
+In that case, use the ``+really`` convention: for example, if you
+uploaded ``2.3-3`` and now you need to go backwards to upstream 2.2,
+call your reverting upload something like ``2.3+really2.2-1``.
+Eventually, when we upload upstream 2.4, the +really part can go away.
+
+Epochs are also not intended to cope with version
numbers containing strings of letters which the package management
system cannot interpret (such as ``ALPHA`` or ``pre-``), or with silly
orderings. [#]_
Reply to: