when not to use an epoch and how to avoid a sync

[Luke Faraone]

On 06/05/2011 04:52 AM, Alberto Milone wrote:
> I don't plan on syncing my package with the one in Debian as, put
> simply, they are too different in scope and it's just a coincidence that
> now they share the same name. This is why I decided to use an epoch
> instead of having something as 20110426+1+really0.2.x (which, in this
> case, I found unnecessarily ugly).
> 
> Furthermore I knew that Steve Langasek had already blacklisted
> nvidia-common and, in the light of these facts, I made my choice as a
> maintainer and upstream author.

While you may not be planning on syncing these packages, if anybody else
decides to down the line, we will have to get Debian to add a epoch or
forever be doing merges in Ubuntu.

-- 
Luke Faraone;; Debian & Ubuntu Developer; Sugar Labs, Systems
lfaraone on irc.[freenode,oftc].net -- http://luke.faraone.cc
PGP fprint: 5189 2A7D 16D0 49BB 046B DC77 9732 5DD8 F9FD D506

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20110605/ab167c04/attachment.pgp>