On 2017-10-27 14:26, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Ken Brown writes:
>> A future version of setup might allow version numbers of the form
>> e:v-r, where is an epoch.  Currently setup doesn't parse these
>> correctly when reading installed.db.  In case ScanFindVisitor is used,
>> there is an additional problem in reading filenames containing colons.
>> The reading is done by Win32 functions, and the illegal characters
>> like ':' aren't translated.
> 
> I don't really think it's worth anybody's while to introduce support for
> a feature (epochs) that everone else decided should not be used.  Do we
> really want to use epochs and what for?

On the contrary, I have argued that we *do* need epoch to deal with
occasions where versions go backwards.  I did however say that I wasn't
keen on using them to work around CPAN's unique versioning issues, as it
may inflate quickly in that particular scenario.

-- 
Yaakov