On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 12:40 PM Étienne Mollier <emoll...@emlwks999.eu> wrote: > Martin-Éric Racine, on 2023-06-16: > > Someone filed a bug asking to re-introduce an epoch. > > > > An older fork of the same package back in Wheezy last featured the epoch. > > > > Personally, I'm fine with either marking the bug as WONTFIX or > > re-introducing the epoch for one specific binary target whose name > > matches what was last seen in Wheezy. I simply want to hear what is > > the mailing list's concensus. > > The bug seems to only affect your binary package dhcpcd, so > maybe a possible option could be to move ressources provided by > the dhcpcd package to dhcpcd5 and remove the dhcpcd package. It > would avoid you the epoch bump and the hassle to handle the > version bump from the old fork, but it also might confuse people > using the package. What do you think?
If you look at the other open bug, the point precisely was to get rid of the 5 completely. I found a simple override that would re-introduce the epoch only for bin:dhcpcd (but not for bin:dhcpcd-base or the transitional bin:dhcpcd5). I however wonder whether this is worth the trouble, given how far back the last occurrence of bin:dhcpcd goes. This being said, archive policy might mandate doing this even if the last occurrence of bin:dhcpcd dates back from 2016. Martin-Éric
