On Thu, 26 Nov 2020, 11:30 am Holger Levsen, <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The technical problems I'm are aware of are that a.) version numbers > (with and without epoch) need to be unique, so if you had 0:2.0.0-1 > you are not allowed to ever have 1:2.0.0-1 again. That's enforced > by dak however. > That's not enforced by dak. The only case it would be enforced is when once try to upload the 1: version while the 0: is still published, which is rare in the cases of epochs. The other technical problem is that .deb filenames don't contain > the epoch, which is a problem the archive Which is the same problem as above, from my understanding. There is that risk in having two filenames with different content across history. IIRC, there *used to* be an actual problem way back in some program that couldn't handle the : in filenames, and that's why they are not present to this day. I argue that we could just put that : (or the %-encoded version, to avoid accidentally ssh-ing somewhere...) and be done with whatever problem. The other problem, is that maintainers regularly forge to put the epoch when writing version restrictions in d/control, but those are just bugs that people should be aware of... (Explicitly not drawing any conclusion here...)
