On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 01:57:16PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 14 février 2018 12:53 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian..org> : > > >> > Would it hurt to take those epoch bumps into Debian? > >> > >> Depends on what you mean by hurt. I see epochs being used w/o much > >> tought or care, on many situations where they are not supposed to be > >> used, and they are permanent stigmas. > > > > I wonder where this representation of "epoch" as a "stigma" comes from. > > They're a part of a version number. They're as much a stigma as the "57" > > in "libavcodec57". What's the big deal? Just use it if you need to, and > > be done with it. > > > > There's really really really nothing wrong with using an epoch. If some > > of our (or someone else's) infrastructure has issues dealing with them, > > then that's a bug in the infrastructure and we should fix it. But nobody > > should be afraid of using an epoch when the upstream version number > > changes incompatibly, because *that's what they're for*. > > It's not only an infrastructure problem. If you Depends on X (>= 1.8), > this will be true with X 1:1.6 as well.
Well, obviously, because 1:1.6 is larger than 1.8, according to our versioning rules. I agree that the epoch not being in the file name makes that unexpected, but that's a bug in whatever decides that filename, not in the use of the epoch. -- Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!? -- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008 Hacklab