On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> until 2.1.0 comes out, so that we wouldn't need to use a ``dirty, evil
> epoch''.
>
No one has said anything about dirt or evil with respect to epochs.
Policy says not to use them for this purpose. It also says not to use
pre-release numbering schemes. Which doesn't leave much wiggle room.
> > I am also certain that I have
> > not misrepresented the technical consequences of the use of epochs)
>
> Apart from the fact that they never go away, even when used ``properly'' :-)
>
Agreed.
Brandon Mitchell has come up with a better scheme than my "numbering"
alternative. Consider the following:
2.0.8pre1 2.0.8-0pre1
2.0.8pre2 2.0.8-0pre2
2.0.8 2.0.8-1
This has several advantages over my previous scheme. It preserves the
upstream version information in "human readable form". It takes advantage
of the fact that dpkg will create a source upload for -0 and -1 sequences.
It naturally maintains the dpkg sequence ordering of the version numbers.
It doesn't need to use epochs.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
