From the changelog:
* added 1: epoch due to old netcdf-doc package having epoch 1:
-- Warren Turkal w...@penguintechs.org 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 p...@debian.org 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 debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/caktje6ekafwg7zb4pkh4yrqvbkcp8kbd-7pmbht0rxr5tl4...@mail.gmail.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAK6Z60cEEeo4k568_b9t=9O=+Y=kj4wy0jo9+x5negqrdyy...@mail.gmail.com
