Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 10:25 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 09:55:50AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: >>> Start using stricter versioning with Epoch bumps as necessary, >> Ouch! Anything but epochs! > > Why? I keep hearing epochs are the spawn of satan. It's just a > number... why are they so bad? One reason is that they're opaque to several common use cases, with current RPM versions. Neither "rpm -q" nor "rpm -qi" show Epochs. Neither are epochs included in RPM file names. Now arguably this is a problem with RPM rather than with epochs, but until the defaults change in RPM it can make things confusing and awkward. Try explaining to a non-RPM expert why doing this: rpm -i foo-1.0.i386.rpm rpm -U foo-1.1.i386.rpm gives an error about foo-1.1 being an older version. (in the case that the Epoch on foo-1.1 is lower than that on foo-1.0) Even though I'm a packager and I know about epochs, I still occasionally have a head-scratching moment related to something like this. Tim -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
