On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 08:05:24PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 19:09:00 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > and the next update needed at least 23:3.0. E.g. the epoch > > > > inflation everywhere make it mandatory to start checking all your > > > > versioned BRs and > > > > > > Versioned BRs are not affected, since the RPM Epoch never specifies an > > > API version. > > > > What makes you say this? How about epoch of the perl package itself? > > It is specific to the RPM package, not defined by Perl at all. > > > They very much define the ABI/API in this case by themselves. > > There is no Epoch in Perl's versioning scheme. Not in the old one, > and not in the new one either. Ehem, perl itself is currently at epoch 4. Any package that needs to define that it needs a specific range of perl ABI/API to work with/build against needs to know the version-epoch mapping history of perl or to reply on artificially virtual provides. > Why do you want to add Epochs to versioned Perl dependencies? I don't, but if there are such I have to. Say for example that xmltv depends on perl(Lingua::Preferred) >= 0.2.4. If perl-Lingua-Preferred had an epoch the above check would need to get this epoch added and properly maintained by humans or machines. Anyway the world would be a better place w/o epochs. :) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpXQ6U802GVc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
