On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 01:38:53PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
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
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.
Well, epochs don't magically do that either. :) What I can't think of is
cases where it wouldn't work to have a new package plus a
transition/cleanup package. It's somewhat more work, but that's probably
a good thing--and it would make what's going on a lot more obvious.