Philipp Kern <pk...@debian.org> writes: > On 09.02.2018 18:20, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Philipp Kern <pk...@debian.org> writes:
>>> But how is that better than using an epoch? I fully understand why >>> Ubuntu has to use this scheme because they can't use epochs. But we >>> can. Why isn't this a legitimate case to use one? >> Ubuntu can use epochs. Neither Debian nor Ubuntu can have two deb >> files that generate the same filename (which doesn't include the >> epoch). > If Ubuntu uses an epoch without Debian following that decision, they can > never sync with Debian again, increasing the maintenance burden > indefinitely. That's the origin of the various +really versions there. Oh, apologies, I misunderstood. Yes, indeed, Ubuntu can't use an epoch independent of Debian for a package also in Debian. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
