On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 04:37:46PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Yadd (2022-08-19 10:21:17)
> > some months ago, a bad upstream tag changed node-markdown-it version to
> > 22.2.3 instead of 10.0.0. So I'd like to change node-markdown-it version
> > into 1:13.0.1
>
> Since upstream is already at 10, is it unlikely that they will reach 22
> in the foreseeable future?
>
> What I am getting at is that introducing an epoch is a pain *forever*
> (all dependent packages must then *forever* remember to add "1:" prefix)
> wheread converting the accidental too-high major version into
> pseudo-epoch "22.really." will last only until upstream catches up.
"only"
Policy 5.6.12.1 states:
> Note that the purpose of epochs is to cope with situations where the
> upstream version numbering scheme changes and to allow us to leave
> behind serious mistakes.
Someone using 22.something rather than 12.something in a version number,
to me, sounds like someone making a "serious mistake".
So this is *exactly* what epochs are meant for!
The something+reallysomethingelse convention is evil and should never
have been invented in the first place. It's extremely confusing to
users, and an epoch is *hidden* from them.
If someone forgets an epoch in a package dependency, we have this
wonderful invention called "the Debian Bug Tracking System" that's
designed to deal with that, or someone can create a lintian test that
complains loudly if you create a dependency for a package version that
has not existed since oldstable.
--
w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}
I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.
