Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I actually like this. I still think that the aversion people > have for epochs is rather more than is warranted from the technical > objections (the mandatory longevity _is_ a technical objection), but > the -0 approach is elegant.
I mostly agree, but the argument that anything to the right of the dash should only reflect *Debian* related revisions does hold some water. My final take on this is that I would have been happy using epochs, but I can see that, in cases where we know that we're going to have a recurring pattern in the upstream sources, it could be considered more elegant to have a "mini" or "right-side" epoch that's somehow distinguished from the "major" or "left-side" epoch. The proposal above accomplishes this, but in a slightly ugly fashion. It might be a little nicer to just define a "right side" epoch. Something like: 2.0.7-1:alpha 2.0.7-1:pre1 etc. So anything to the right of a : that's to the right of the - would be the mini-epoch, and any package with a :foo at the end automatically sorted as older than the same version of the package without the :X (ignoring the debian revision). (I'd rather use 2.0.7:pre1-1, but we can't because then something like 1:2-4 becomes ambiguous.) Unfortunately this might require some major dpkg hackery akin to the hassle we had introducing epochs in the first place, but it would IMO be a "cleanish" solution to the problem. I've probably overlooked something obvious, so flame away... -- Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]