Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 04:59:13PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > > Well, if you hadn't been awake, the maintainers would have had to upload > > a package with an ugly version number (or even an epoch), which would > > not be the end of the world. > > Not everyone agrees with that :)
If UNACCEPT has only been used once per year then that's one added epoch per year from now on. While glibc is not a package I'd really like to see an epoch on, the fact is that there are nearly 2000 binary packages in the archive with an epoch, so any more added due to the loss of UNACCEPT is a drop in the bucket. > I'm sorry, I'm not going to debate the merits of UNACCEPTing. Since the > accepted queues have been in place, it's happened about four times -- > less than once a year. We've regretted every single one of those, at > least in part. Are you counting the time we almost removed all of d-i from the archive by accident and put it back before dinstall as an UNACCEPT? :-) (In Porto Alegre.) -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
