On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 12:43:42PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Exactly, and we're talking about package dependencies and how the ugly > > epoch is needed for expressing the desired API/ABI in BuildRequires. > > You don't need to. The Epoch is irrelevant in Perl's API/ABI definition. > "perl <= 4:5.8.8" means that any version, any Epoch is provided. You could > do "Requires: perl = 2:5.005" and "Requires: perl = 1:4", it would be > satisfied, too. As well as Required: perl >= 6, because the epoch was forgotten => broken package => epoch bad > > You are promoting to tailor specfiles against target releases. > > Non-versioned dependencies in spec files are more portable than > versioned ones. On the first look only, because the package layer allows you to push the package in. The missing dependency information will reveal itself later while building or even worse, while running => broken package => removing versioned dependencies and relying on target platform bad, and since you suggest that as a workaround due to epoching: => epoch bad > > 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. > > Hmm, that are your personal preferences which conflict with what can > happen due to Epochs in RPM version comparison. ??? > Personally, I don't like to rely on the relationship of different > products. So remove all dependencies and go LFS? Not a good idea. 10: > > Epoch bad. > > No. goto 10: Can we simply agree that we are 180° of different opinion and get out of the loop? I think I need to bring this up at the fedora-packaging list - I thought that epochs being evil was rather common knowledge and since it's not we noeed to put a recommendation against using them in the guidelines. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp8sjuqzuWVz.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
