[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [E-devel] Larger diff against CVS concernig autofoo and debian/*

On Tuesday, 24 October 2006, at 10:48:16 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:

> If it does, it's not documented in the policy manual.

Seems to me that the only valid purpose for an Epoch would be to act
as a "superversion" in case of dramatic versioning convention changes
(such as YYYYMMDD -> X.Y.Z) and such.  And that only works if it
supercedes version.

> And even still, it shouldn't matter.  If people are going to change
> their source for the packages (especially going to the main
> repository), they need to remove all the packages from conflicting
> repositories.

Then why did you put the epoch in there to begin with?  Might it have
been to easily override/replace the packages from other repositories
without as much manual intervention?  Hmmmm....  :-)

Now people start to see why cAos policy forbids epochs.  Epoch is like
suicide:  it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem.


Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  <mej@kainx.org>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/       Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
 "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
  right to say it."                                        -- Voltaire