Hello Wouter, On Thu, Jun 28 2018, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Incorrect epochs are a nuisance at best. I think you might be unaware of the recently-added section 3.2.2 of the Policy Manual. Having to check whether the upstream part of a version number has been used before, because there are epochs involved, is more than a nuisance. And every epoch bump makes that task more involved. > Yes, it's correct that epochs cause confusion, because some bits of > our infrastructure drop the epoch in the filename. I submit that that > is in fact a bug in that bit of infrastructure; epochs are a critical > part of the version number, and they should not be dropped, ever. If you're right that it's a bug, it's not one that we are ever going to fix, nor one that we should fix -- it would be a poor use of volunteer time to try to change every single tool that processes source packages. > But if we're going to introduce the *requirement* to ask on -devel for > every nitty bitty thing that might possibly somewhere down the road > cause some confusion in some inexperienced developer, then in the end > the -devel mailinglist will devolve to a list where senior DDs come by > to ask "can I please introduce a postinst to my package?" and that's > just a waste of everyone's time. There are no other similar changes in the pipeline. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature