On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > 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.
The point is that the introduction of the epoch breaks dependencies of existing packages. This is fine when upstream has anyway changed its versioning scheme. But it's not so great when we just downgraded temporarily in Debian for whatever reason. So we want to avoid usage of epochs when it's not required by upstream's change of versioning scheme. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
