On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 05:17:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I would use an epoch.
yes.
[...]
> Basically, you'd be burning a lot of social capital with upstream for no
> really good reason and you probably still wouldn't be able to convince
> them. I don't think it's worth it.
yes.
> I would just use the epoch. I know people really hate them and they have
> a few weird and annoying properties, but we have a bunch of packages with
> epochs and it's mostly fine.
a bunch?
$ grep ^Version:
/var/lib/apt/lists/deb.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_source_Sources
|awk ' { print $2 } ' |grep -c :
1142
$ grep -c ^Version:
/var/lib/apt/lists/deb.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_source_Sources
38200
ok, maybe 3% of all packages is a bunch. :)
> It's something you'll have to keep working
> around forever, but not in a way that's really that hard to deal with,
> IMO.
yes.
> This feels like exactly the type of situation that epochs were designed
> for: upstream was releasing packages with weird version numbers and now
> they're effectively going back to normal version numbers that are much
> smaller. In other words, to quote policy, "situations where the upstream
> version numbering scheme changes." Yes, in this case it was only in their
> packages and not in their software releases, but that still counts when
> they have an existing user base that has those packages installed.
yes.
Thank you Russ, for wording this so well, that I don't have to type much.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
In a world where you can be anything, be kind.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
