I presume that there would be no question of this discussion even starting
if libc6 had already got an epoch of 1:
It's epoch would just have been bumped up to 2: and nobody would have noticed
the difference.
Since there is an implicit epoch of 0: on the front of all non-epoch versions,
we are really discussing which is best out of:
1) Causing a SNAFU in the versions of an important package, one day before
the beta release of 2.0, which is likely to cause problems for many people
and work for several maintainers.
2) Use the Epoch system for the purpose it was intended, and move libc6
from version ``0:2.0.7pre'' to ``1:2.0.7''.
Please don't allow this package out of Incoming until the version number has
been fixed.
Cheers, Phil.
P.S. Perhaps we should change policy, to ask people to explicitly include the
0: epoch that is currently implicit, to avoid this sort of silliness in future.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
