Hello, Thank you for the feedback, Simon.
I tried to incorporate what you said while avoiding talking about the namespace pairs, for the sake of readability. Further, I shortened "upstream version without the epoch" to "upstream version" because the epoch is a Debian thing. Seeking seconds: > ยง3.2.2 Uniqueness of version numbers > > The part of the version number after the epoch must not be reused for > a version of the package with different contents once the package has > been accepted into the archive, even if the version of the package > previously using that part of the version number is no longer present > in any archive suites. > > This uniqueness requirement applies to the version numbers of source > packages and of binary packages, even if the source package producing > a given binary package changes. Thus the version numbers which a > binary package must not reuse includes the version numbers of any > versions of the binary package ever accepted into the archive, under > any source package. > > Additionally, for non-native packages, the upstream version must not > be reused for different upstream source code, so that for each source > package name and upstream version number there exists exactly one > original source archive contents [reference to defintiion of that]. > > The reason for these restrictions is as follows. Epochs are not > included in the names of the files that compose source packages, or in > the filenames of binary packages, so reusing a version number, even if > the epoch differs, results in identically named files with different > contents. This can cause various problems. > > If you find yourself wanting to reuse the part of a version number > after the epoch, you can just increment the Debian revision, which > doesn't need to start at 1 or be consecutive. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
