On Monday, July 1, 2024 5:59:00 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote: > On 01/07/2024 21:51, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > > Hi Andrey. > > Thanks for input. > > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:46:11PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > >> 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. > > But this is not about third parties, it's about upstream which publishes > PPA packages. So far these are by far the most used Linux packages. > > I also hesitate to add an epoch, after all they are basically considered > evil. But if we should not use them when upstream has a broken > versioning we are about to replace, when should we use it? > > I have good relations with upstream, and they are willing to abandon the > current broken versioning in favor of something sane. But the legacy is > there, and we need to handle it. > > Have considered tricks like adding a 10000. prefix to the debian/ubuntu > versions. But to me, this looks even worse. > > Thoughts?
Upstream can change the versioning however they want. They are upstream. If they don't care to fix it, then I think we assume they are fine with it and leave it as is. Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
