(And that should have been sent from my @d.o email address, but the setup I have in place for that is apparently broken, sorry đ)
On 26/11/2020 14:19, Clément Hermann wrote: > On 26/11/2020 09:31, Paul Gevers wrote: >> Hi Michael, >> >> On 26-11-2020 08:57, Michael Prokop wrote: >>> AFAICS we could: >>> >>> 1) use 2.0.0+really1.8.3 pattern for our Debian package version >> >> As it seems not unreasonable to expect the upstream version to go past >> 2.0.0 in the not infinite future, this is the approach I would take. >> Because you ask here, it suggests to me that doing this has some pain >> for the packaging that you didn't elaborate on. Why do you even raise >> the question here on debian-devel and don't just do this established way >> of fixing these kind of temporarily versioning issues in Debian? > > Well, I was the one suggesting Michael start a discussion on > debian-devel about it, so I thought I'd chime in. > > > My reasonning is +really<version> seems to me to be a workaround when we > have to change the version number for Debian only reason - with no fault > of upstream. An example of this was the lack of transition in the last > freeze with a bunch of Go packages that were updated in unstable when > they shouldn't have, and had to be reverted. > > Actually, I even suggested to use +upstream<version> instead, but I > don't know if that'd be allowed (as in understandable, clearer that > +really and as such, useful). > > Also, we don't know if it's temporary, as Holger pointed out. > > An epoch might be overkill here, but also seems more appropriate to me > since we have to work around upstream decision in this case. And since > the Policy states it needs to be discussed first here, I suggested to do > just that. > > I do agreee that the best and most logical thing would be for upstream > to start using 3.0, as Simon pointed out. Michael, did you bring this > issue upstream ? Would you suggest this option to them ? If they're > willing to do that in a reasonable timeframe, we could go the +really > route and wait until 3.0 is available upstream. Otherwise, we can go for > an epoch if we reach consensus here. > > Thanks to everyone participating, by the way! > > Cheers, >
