On 09.02.2018 17:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is
>> You say upstream version. But I'd say that rollbacks are exactly that:
>> reuse of a different epoch with the same upstream version. Like what
>> happened to imagemagick multiple times.
> I don't know precisely what you mean by "rollback". If you mean
> "change our mind about uploading foo new upstream version 3, and go
> back to foo upstream version 2", I would not encourage use of an epoch
> for that. I would upload foo version "3+really2". This is ugly but
> fits much better into everything.
But how is that better than using an epoch? I fully understand why
Ubuntu has to use this scheme because they can't use epochs. But we can.
Why isn't this a legitimate case to use one?