Hi Martin-Éric, Martin-Éric Racine, on 2023-06-16: > (non-subscriber, please keep me in CC) Acknowledged. > Someone filed a bug asking to re-introduce an epoch. > > An older fork of the same package back in Wheezy last featured the epoch. > > Personally, I'm fine with either marking the bug as WONTFIX or > re-introducing the epoch for one specific binary target whose name > matches what was last seen in Wheezy. I simply want to hear what is > the mailing list's concensus. Hmn, hard to tell, I tend to believe the severity is justified, as one could have carried the old dhcpcd package over a number of Debian versions since wheezy, and won't get the dhcpcd you introduced. On the other hand, you mention your package is a different implementation, so perhaps the version bump from the old fork to your package might have unintended effects, for instance if configuration file formats and such were to have evolved. The bug seems to only affect your binary package dhcpcd, so maybe a possible option could be to move ressources provided by the dhcpcd package to dhcpcd5 and remove the dhcpcd package. It would avoid you the epoch bump and the hassle to handle the version bump from the old fork, but it also might confuse people using the package. What do you think? Have a nice day, :) -- Étienne Mollier <emollier@emlwks999.eu> Fingerprint: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da Sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature