Michael Stone <mst...@debian.org> writes: > I don't think you'd need to change the package metadata for this, just > change the comparison rules. I'm not entirely sure what the semantics > should be, though--a simple depends >= is easy, but what about conflicts > and breaks with <<? I agree that it's probably more trouble than it's > worth.
Yeah, that would work too, although you'd need to use a different comparison function for dependencies than for determining the default version of a package to install. I'm not sure which is less confusing; it's kind of confusing either way. > Another way to think of it is that the epoch should really be evaluated > as part of the package name rather than the version string--it's > basically a mechanism to avoid renaming a package for purely aesthetic > reasons. Well, it also has the function of getting rid of the old package and being part of the normal upgrade path. The latter is important. If the previous version had major data loss or security issues, introducing a new package with a different name doesn't have the semantics you want. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>