Moin, On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 02:21:43PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > There are two problems here. > > The first is the use of an epoch in a situation where it shouldn't be used. > > The actual "trap" is when a maintainer used an epoch in such a situation. > > Once introduced in a package an epoch cannot ever be undone, so all that > can be done on that is to make it clearer that it is wrong to use an > epoch in such cases.
I don't understand why everybody is so afraid of an epoch, but ok. > The second problem is about filename overlap after incorrect epoch usage. So the epoch is not really part of the version number, it is just there for "sorting"? > It is important to understand that this is only relevant for cases where > an epoch was used where it shouldn't have been: > When an epoch is used as intended for a change in the upstream version > numbering scheme (e.g. from 20171224 to 1.0), there is no overlap in > version numbers. > > Launchpad gave an error on that, and this is better than the silent > breakage in Debian of the assumption that no filename is ever used twice > in Debian. I would consider it a bug in dak that it doesn't know about > all versions and filenames that ever existed in Debian. ok > It would be wrong to document in Debian policy that skipping Debian > revisions is required in such cases, since the only case where this > second problem can happen is when a maintainer used an epoch in a > situation where it shouldn't be used (first problem).[1] > > For the future it should be documented better that using an epoch is > wrong in such cases, but for past incorrect epoch usage all that can > be done is to limit the damage. If this can't go into policy, then I hope it will go into the wiki or a packaging best-practices or so. > Things that cannot be undone for moon-buggy: > - the epoch > - two files moon-buggy_1.0.51-1.dsc exist in Debian, > with different contents [2] > > What can be done for moon-buggy is to use a Debian revision that doesn't > result in filenames that are duplicates with pre-epoch packages. So what should I have done intially and what should I do now? I should have uploaded the package as 1.0.51-12 even though I uploaded a (new) orig.tar.gz? Now I should upload it as 1:1.0.51-12 and be done with it? No renaming of the orig.tar to 1.0.51+really1.0.51 neccessary? thanks, Christian
