Re: 2008Q1 -> current: downgrade

[Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 10:37:24PM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
> First, your numbers (two, three and eight) are totally wrong. Second,
> I have already showed (in my previous emails) real life examples
> why PKG_EPOCH is helpful and
> in which cases.

And people have told you in previous emails that you are exaggerating;
why PKG_EPOCH is overkill, and how it can easily be worked around.

At the risk of boring the backside off the rest of the readers of this
list:

        if the version number travels backwards (version number being
        dewey decimal, not numbers alphabetically-sorted), we will
        change the PKGBASE number.

        A worked example:  wibble-2.03 is in pkgsrc.  It gets taken
        over by a new maintainer, who changes the version number to
        1.0, to denote the new regime.  The new version in pkgsrc is
        given the name wibble1-1.0.

This is much less intrusive and annoying than having a separate
PKG_EPOCH value.

Regards,
Al