Bug#881431: proposed wording
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:32:02PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Suggested replacement:
>
> The part of the version number after the epoch must not be reused for a
> version of the package with different contents, even if the version
> of the package previously using that part of the version number is
> no longer present in any archive suites.
>
> Epochs are not included in the names of the files that compose
> source packages, or in the filenames of binary packages, so reusing
> a version number, even if the epoch differs, results in identically
> named files with different contents. This causes various problems.
Sounds better than mine. I'd re-add "once that package has been accepted
into the archive", to make it obvious that resubmissions to NEW and/or
mentors are expected to reuse version numbers of what they amend.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ When I visited the US a couple decades ago, Hillary molested and
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ groped me. You don't believe? Well, the burden of proof is on you!
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Flooding a douche with obviously false accusations makes your other
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ words dubious even when they happen to be true.
Reply to: