Hi! On Sat, 2023-06-17 at 11:39:51 +0200, Étienne Mollier wrote: > Martin-Éric Racine, on 2023-06-16: > > Someone filed a bug asking to re-introduce an epoch. > > > > An older fork of the same package back in Wheezy last featured the epoch. > > > > Personally, I'm fine with either marking the bug as WONTFIX or > > re-introducing the epoch for one specific binary target whose name > > matches what was last seen in Wheezy. I simply want to hear what is > > the mailing list's concensus. > > Hmn, hard to tell, I tend to believe the severity is justified, > as one could have carried the old dhcpcd package over a number > of Debian versions since wheezy, and won't get the dhcpcd you > introduced.
While I guess in general and in theory this would apply, in this particular case I think the following does make some sense: > On the other hand, you mention your package is a > different implementation, so perhaps the version bump from the > old fork to your package might have unintended effects, for > instance if configuration file formats and such were to have > evolved. By reading #594672 and a quick skim over #551034, these seem to have been the same project, but the version introduced later as dhcpcd5 was a new major version with an incompatible redesign, which would break on upgrade, that's why it was not packaged at the time using the same source package. So to me it makes sense to avoid adding the epoch to avoid automatic upgrades like it was avoided in the past, otherwise people might expect a smooth upgrade path. Also for reference the old dhcpcd was removed from Debian in 2014: https://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dhcpcd.html Unfortunately, even though this was long ago, there seems to still be a short tail of such package installed on systems: https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=dhcpcd5 > The bug seems to only affect your binary package dhcpcd, so > maybe a possible option could be to move ressources provided by > the dhcpcd package to dhcpcd5 and remove the dhcpcd package. It > would avoid you the epoch bump and the hassle to handle the > version bump from the old fork, but it also might confuse people > using the package. What do you think? The only problem I see with leaving things as is, is that some users might not notice they need to upgrade. It would be nice if we had some way to notify of these kind of obsolete packages or upgrades. But if you end up deciding on adding the epoch, then yeah please, just add it to the affected binary package (even though in this case that matches the source package, so it's going to be sticking forever I guess anyway :/). Thanks, Guillem
