Philipp Kern <pk...@debian.org> writes:
> On 09.02.2018 17:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> 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?
Ubuntu can use epochs. Neither Debian nor Ubuntu can have two deb files
that generate the same filename (which doesn't include the epoch).
There isn't really a difference here except that Ubuntu breaks more
obviously and earlier, whereas such packages seem like they work in Debian
but then break other tools outside of DAK that expect filenames to be
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>