Bart Martens <bartm <at> debian.org> writes: > Michael Biebl wrote : > > The usage of really (...) that you don't have to fix all r-deps to include > > the the epoch in the Build-Depends. > > Why would adding an epoch cause the need for adding the epoch in the > build-dependent packages ?
Interestingly enough, I was just thinking about writing a message that said something to the point of, using “really” for a once-off botched upload would be okay. Then I considered versioning on the r-deps. Now imagine the following: • foo 1.0-1 uploaded • bar 1.0-1 uploaded, depends on foo-dev (>= 1.0) • foo 1.1-1 uploaded • bar 1.1-1 uploaded, depends on foo-dev (>= 1.1) • foo 1.1-1really1.0-1 uploaded That’s a massive “oops” in both cases. Funnily enough, using the epoch will, yes, force an update of all r-deps, BUT it’s the only sane way for the r-deps because otherwise the saga continues: • bar 1.1-2 uploaded, depends on foo-dev (>= 1.1), foo-dev (<< 1.1-1really1.0-1~) | foo-dev (>= 1.1-2~) • foo 1.1-2 uploaded • foo 1.1-2really1.1-1 uploaded……… For r-deps it’s much clearer if you use epochs. It’ll disallow some versions, but it’s easier to see what’s really depended on. Also, once a r-dep includes the “really” it gets visually uglier too. (It’s bad enough we have build-depends with Ubuntu version numbers in them, but I can understand that too.) > I agree with that. I think version ordering should be preserved forever. This is also an interesting point, yes. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130508t101613-...@post.gmane.org
