Hello Samuel and Peter, On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 01:00 +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote: > From Sven: > > To comply with DEP-14, I just created the branch debian/latest and > > intend to drop the branch debian/sid eventually. > > Can you please set debian/latest to 'default' and 'protected'? I don't > > have the rights to do this. > > Awesome, I've done these changes and also gave you Maintainer > permissions to the repo. Thanks a lot! > From Peter: > > as you suspect the Linitian tag is only emitted if the number of > > changelog entries is one. The reason is that it is too late to switch to > > the suggested versioning scheme after the first upload. Once an upload > > with a date-based versioning scheme has been done, an epoch likely needs > > to be introduced in case upstream switches to a conventional versioning > > scheme. Therefore this Lintian hint become pointless after the first > > upload. Still the reasoning to avoid prefix-less date-based versioning > > schemes remains valid. > > Peter is correct, the main thing to have in mind is that having the > package version starting with "0~" is much less painful than dealing > with an epoch, so the lintian is hinting towards the idea that all > calver-versioned packages should be versioned like that (with "0~"). > > For the record, I remember Raphaël once mentioning on this list that > epochs are also troublesome for derivatives, but I don't know the > details on that (and it was a few years ago). > > Still, if you think there's an issue with this versioning (that > overcomes the benefit of it), Sven, feel free to raise your concerns > and we can drop it if it makes sense. My only concern would be to stay as close as possible with upstream and other distributions, Considering your arguments, I will retain the current versioning scheme. Thank you for your thoughts, Peter and Samuel! -- GPG Fingerprint 3DF5 E8AA 43FC 9FDF D086 F195 ADF5 0EDA F8AD D585
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part