On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 09:20:08PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 20:32:45 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > 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. > > Perl itself isn't, the RPM package in FC6 is "perl <= 4:5.8.8". Exactly, and we're talking about package dependencies and how the ugly epoch is needed for expressing the desired API/ABI in BuildRequires. > > 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. > > You build against a single target. In FC6 it's Perl v5.8.8. Its API/ABI > is defined by its version and in detail by a lot of stuff in the > "Provides". The Epoch of the RPM package has nothing to do with > that. You are promoting to tailor specfiles against target releases. This is a wrong thing to do for many things, for one I want to keep the same specfile across different releases (*and* distributions like Fedora <-> RHEL specfile sharing). Removing all versioning in specfiles because "we know" fcN has foo version XYZ leads to broken and low-quality specfiles. > > > 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. > > Why? You want 'perl(Lingua::Preferred) >= 0.2.4', and either your > build/target environment provides this version or not. And it may even provide it with a lower version and a higher epoch, so my version requirements go banana. Epoch bad. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp1aWiy84jYP.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
