Re: using epoch to repair versioning of byacc package

2022-01-24 Thread Andreas Metzler
On 2022-01-23 Thomas Dickey wrote: > From: Richard Laager >> On 1/23/22 10:04, Thomas Dickey wrote: [...] >> I see no other way to correct this but to add an epoch. > agreed. Is there some way to further improve the transition? >> As we see in this case, switching from version numbers to date-

Re: using epoch to repair versioning of byacc package

2022-01-23 Thread Thomas Dickey
> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 14:55:39 -0600 > From: Richard Laager > To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: using epoch to repair versioning of byacc package > > On 1/23/22 10:04, Thomas Dickey wrote: > > In #1003769, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > > 1. The u

Re: using epoch to repair versioning of byacc package

2022-01-23 Thread Richard Laager
On 1/23/22 10:04, Thomas Dickey wrote: In #1003769, Andreas Metzler wrote: 1. The upload introduces an epoch because the upstream version went from mmdd to 2.0.mmdd. Given that the new version scheme seems to have found acceptance in e.g. Fedora /I/ do not see a better way. Could you ask

Re: using epoch to repair versioning of byacc package

2022-01-23 Thread Thomas Dickey
In #1003769, Andreas Metzler wrote: > 1. The upload introduces an epoch because the upstream version went from > mmdd to 2.0.mmdd. Given that the new version scheme seems to > have found acceptance in e.g. Fedora /I/ do not see a better way. Could > you ask about the epoch on debian-devel (