Thusly spoke Arno Schuring (aelschuring@??? on 2017-10-09 17:39
+0200):
> Thusly spoke Ivan J. (parazyd@??? on 2017-10-07 17:57 +0200):
> >
> > * eudev:
> > eudev has been hanging in the experimental repo for 5+ months as of
> > today. No incentive was shown to include it in actual Devuan
> > repositories.
>
> That package has an epoch of 220. It's a good thing it has never seen
> a release other than experimental, that means we can still fix it.
>

According to the changelog, there have been three builds with that
epoch for unstable, so we may be stuck with it. Were those builds ever
released in the archives?

eudev (220:3.2.2-3) unstable; urgency=medium
eudev (220:3.2.2-2) unstable; urgency=medium
eudev (220:3.2.2-1) unstable; urgency=medium

If it was just about eudev, I would suggest dropping the epoch
altogether, but it seems that libudev1 comes from the same source
package, and that of course has a versioning conflict with libudev from
systemd. So an epoch of 1 may still be required. And regarding
compatibility, do we have a process in place to keep our libudev
package ABI-compatible with Debian's, or do we intend to rebuild every
Debian package that links against libudev?

Second, I see that the eudev packaging carries the full systemd
changelog history -- but I thought that eudev was forked upstream? In
that case I think we can drop all changelog history from before the
fork (since it's essentially a new source package), even if we reuse
the original packaging. That may be needed anyway, since the changelog
also contains changes to the non-udev parts of systemd, and I don't
think it's worth the hassle to filter those entries manually.


Thoughts?

Regards,
Arno