On 2026-01-01 Sean Whitton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. Definitely not my intention, thank you for making me clarify this. cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
