Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump [and 2 more messages]

Hello, On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for >epoch bump [and 2 more messages]"): >> On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: >> > When we get to tidying this up, the epoch-ignoring new fi

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump [and 2 more messages]

Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump [and 2 more messages]"): > On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > > When we get to tidying this up, the epoch-ignoring new file name > > uniqueness section could probably do with a cro

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump [and 2 more messages]

Hello, On Fri, May 25 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > When we get to tidying this up, the epoch-ignoring new file name > uniqueness section could probably do with a cross-reference. Do you mean 3.2.2? > I did decide to make the text discouraging epochs a subsection. This is good. I'm also glad

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump [and 2 more messages]

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump [and 2 more messages]"): > Control: tags -1 + patch > > Thanks for the feedback. Please find attached a diff against current > master. The attachment seems to have got lost. Sorry, here it

Processed: Re: Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump [and 2 more messages]

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + patch Bug #891216 [debian-policy] Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump Added tag(s) patch. -- 891216: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=891216 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump [and 2 more messages]

Control: tags -1 + patch Thanks for the feedback. Please find attached a diff against current master. Mattia Rizzolo writes ("Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump"): > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:26:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > + Epochs should not u

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump

Hello, On Mon, Feb 26 2018, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > This needs to be reworded. "the +really convention" is probably not > really policy material (feels more like devref's) and therfore probably > not mentioned here. I disagree. Policy often describes conventions; in particular, conventions

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump

Hello Ian, On Fri, Feb 23 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > We had another thread on debian-devel recently, in which it once again > became evident that epochs are misunderstood. Epoch bumps should be > rare and there are often better solutions. I suggest that we should > ask people to consult

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:26:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Concretely, > > epoch > > This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be > omitted, in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the > upstream_version may not contain any colons. > - >

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump

Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump"): > I also ended up writing a new dpkg FAQ entry, given that thread: > > > <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q:_What_are_version_epochs_and_why_and_when_are_they_needed.3F&

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump

Hi! On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 13:26:01 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 4.1.3.0 > We had another thread on debian-devel recently, in which it once again > became evident that epochs are misunderstood. Epoch bumps should be > rare and there are often better solutions. I

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump

David Bremner writes ("Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump"): > I find the existing use of the debian-devel list in policy strange, and > am unenthusiastic about expanding it. It's not a "must-read" list for > debian contributors, and it is (o

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump

Ian Jackson writes: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 4.1.3.0 > > We had another thread on debian-devel recently, in which it once again > became evident that epochs are misunderstood. Epoch bumps should be > rare and there are often better solutions. I

Bug#891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.3.0 We had another thread on debian-devel recently, in which it once again became evident that epochs are misunderstood. Epoch bumps should be rare and there are often better solutions. I suggest that we should ask people to consult debian-devel. Also we