Hello, Andreas Metzler [01/Jan 1:34pm +01] wrote: > On 2026-01-01 Sean Whitton <[email protected]> wrote: >> Andreas Metzler [01/Jan 12:02pm +01] wrote: >> > I think an epoch is the correct way to do this. > >> Only if you *must* use an epoch. If it can be done without one, it >> should be. > > We use epochs when they are the best solution, not when we "must". They > can always be avoided ("5000000+really+1.0"). > > My advise was for the exact case in question. The package goes from > 20251215-1 to 1.0. That is exactly what we have epochs for: > | Note that the purpose of epochs is to cope with situations where the > | upstream version numbering scheme changes [...] > > FWIW I have also just doublechecked that we are fine regarding "3.2.2. > Uniqueness of version numbers", gnulib package versions went from > 0.0.20060601+dfsg-2 to 20060701+dfsg-1 and never used 1.0.
Yes, it sounds like an epoch would be appropriate. I wrote because your message could be read as saying that an epoch should always be used when moving a binary package between source packages, which is definitely not true. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
