On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:46:11PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > On 01/07/2024 20:48, Alec Leamas wrote: > > Dear list, > > > > Still working with the opencpn package. Now trying to normalize the > > Ubuntu PPA builds so they can are based on the same debian/ directory > > and tools as the existing Debian opencpn package. > > > > opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10.1 release. The > > beta versions are like "5.9.2-beta2+dfsg-1ubuntu1~bpo2204.1". The > > upstream policy is to use 5.9.2-beta2, 5.9.3-beta3 so this ordering is, > > although a bit strange, still ok. > > > > However, a quite large user base have PPA packages installed. These have > > versions like 8767+b2cbf5a3f~ubuntu24.04.1. The prefix is a build > > number, so they are ordered. but all these versions are higher than > > anything like 5.9.x. > > > > After some thought, I tend to think that adding an epoch is the right thing > here. > > The Policy [1] says: > --- > Epochs can help when the upstream version numbering scheme changes, but they > must be used with care. You should not change the epoch, even in > experimental, without getting consensus on debian-devel first. > --- > > With all this said: Is this a case where using a epoch is justified? If not, > why?
Adding epochs to work around 3rd-party repo version problems sounds quite wrong. We don't even add epochs that Ubuntu itself adds. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
