Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * use epochs.
> Con: when an epoch is used once, it cannot be reverted. Although it > seems harmless as the epoch will probably never suffer from storage > overflow, some people seem not to like this solution very much. As you point out later, people seem to have an aesthetic objection to this. I still don't know why the objection is as strong as it seems to be. The epoch number is really unobtrusive... > Con: against the current Packaging Manual's guidelines (section 5): > "Note that the purpose of epochs is to allow us to leave behind > mistakes in version numbering, and to cope with situations where the > version numbering changes. It is not there to cope with version > numbers containing strings of letters which dpkg cannot interpret > (such as ALPHA or pre-), or with silly orderings (the author of this > manual has heard of a package whose versions went 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1, > 2.1, 2.2, 2 and so forth)." Hmm. One way to fix this con would be to just change the packaging manual. Manual admonishments aside, epochs do solve the problem, and we *don't* have any control over the upstream version numbers, so we need some standard solution. Of course your final scheme *is* a bit more flexible, but as you point out, it may be overkill, and it does require modifications to dpkg. -- 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]
