On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 14:15 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote: > 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. > yum list shows epochs. if it is any consolation. -sv -- 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
