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

[Scott Kitterman]

Alberto Milone <alberto.milone at canonical.com> wrote:

>On 06/05/2011 10:30 AM, Micah Gersten wrote:
>> On 06/04/2011 05:25 AM, Alberto Milone wrote:
>>> nvidia-common (1:0.2.30+1) oneiric; urgency=low
>>>
>>> * Add epoch to override the sync. The packages in Debian and Ubuntu
>>> have the same name but different code and scope (LP: #792576).
>>>
>> 
>> So, in Ubuntu we have a sync blacklist to avoid syncing something
>from
>> Debian.  There's no need to add an epoch to avoid this.  In fact,
>adding
>> an epoch will not necessarily help, since you never know when Debian
>> will add one as well.
>> 
>> The process for requesting something to be blacklisted from being
>sync'd
>> from Debian is to simply file a bug against the package and subscribe
>> ubuntu-sponsors if you cannot upload the package (to verify if this
>is
>> indeed the correct course of action) or subscribe ubuntu-archive and
>set
>> the status to confirmed if you can upload the package.
>> 
>> Adding an epoch makes it harder to get back in sync with Debian.  It
>> requires manual intervention until Debian has a situation where they
>add
>> a similar epoch.  Granted, that for this package, it might not happen
>> for a while; but, if we ever were to get these packages in sync, we
>are
>> now stuck with the epoch forever.
>> 
>> Generally, people have been using BAD_VERSION+reallyGOOD_VERSION when
>> something like this happens to avoid having to add an epoch.
>> 
>> IMHO, epochs should not be used in Ubuntu at all for this very
>reason.
>> 
>> In order to prevent autosyncs in the future, one can use an
>x.y-0ubuntu1
>> or x.yubuntu1 version scheme.
>> 
>> Micah
>> 
>
>Hi Micah,
>
>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.
>
This is incorrect. Ubuntu doesn't have maintainers. Micah is right. This is exactly what the sync blacklist is for.

Scott K