> >From the changelog: > > * added 1: epoch due to old netcdf-doc package having epoch 1: > -- Warren Turkal <[email protected]> Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:42:18 -0600
Aha! Well, that is indeed historical. > Not sure what you are referring to by rewrite, but if the all the > source/binary package names are different then you will be able to > avoid the epoch. Nope, the package names stay the same. I guess then we will have to drag the epoch along with us... :/ --Nico On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Paul Wise <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Nico Schlömer wrote: > >> the old netCDF package [1] has an epoch slot, 1, which seems entirely >> unnecessary. For the rewrite, it'd be nice if we could get rid of it. >> Is that common practice? Is there an upgrade path for it? > > >From the changelog: > > * added 1: epoch due to old netcdf-doc package having epoch 1: > > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/n/netcdf/unstable_changelog > > Not sure what you are referring to by rewrite, but if the all the > source/binary package names are different then you will be able to > avoid the epoch. > > -- > bye, > pabs > > http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] > Archive: > https://lists.debian.org/caktje6ekafwg7zb4pkh4yrqvbkcp8kbd-7pmbht0rxr5tl4...@mail.gmail.com > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAK6Z60cEEeo4k568_b9t=9O=+Y=kj4wy0jo9+x5negqrdyy...@mail.gmail.com
