Philipp Kern <pk...@debian.org> writes:
> On 09.02.2018 18:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Philipp Kern <pk...@debian.org> writes:
>>> 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
> If Ubuntu uses an epoch without Debian following that decision, they can
> never sync with Debian again, increasing the maintenance burden
> indefinitely. That's the origin of the various +really versions there.
Oh, apologies, I misunderstood. Yes, indeed, Ubuntu can't use an epoch
independent of Debian for a package also in Debian.
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>