On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 15:21 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 03 January 2007 15:14, David Zeuthen wrote: > > Sorry to sound non-constructive, but can we please stop breaking upgrade > > paths just because someone happens to think that "epochs is ugly" (left > > over packages is much less of a problem). I'd like to go even further > > and ask for our build system to enforce this rule. The justification is > > that it's only a number, and this practice is bordering introducing bugs > > by refactoring source code just because it's "less ugly" that way. > > I'll let conversation happen on the merrits of bumping or not bumping epoch. > > However for buildsystem to enforce this, that's a pretty tough nut to solve, > since any build could get tagged for any variety of collections, regardless > of nvr. In fact, the buildsystem (by design) only enforces unique n-v-r, so > you couldn't do 1:n-v-r and 2:n-v-r, the buildsystem would freak. You'd have > to do 2:n-v-r+1 or some other unique 'n-v-r'. You could, if you wanted to, starting from today have EVERY package have an epoch. The epoch is incremented by the buildsystem/cvs. So if I checkin a change and type 'make plague' it bumps the epoch so that I know that EVERY new build I have would DEFINITELY > via EVR comparisons than the one I built before. We'd have to do some tricky stuff to make sure FC6EPOCH is ALWAYS less than FC7EPOCH but that's do-able. -sv _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
