On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 09:13:47AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > - What is this "0:" prepended to the package names? Apparently the ones I > > upgraded don't have epoch set, so that's not it, unless yum now explicitly > > shows how things are treated... but having it before the version would make > > more sense, no? > > it's the epoch. remember null=0. It's on the front of the name b/c > that's where I've always seen it written - mostly b/c you can parse it > from right to left that way more easily. I haven't seen it in front of names, only in front of versions. Why don't you simply use the notation of the header files (name-epoch-andsoon)? > I think I'll remove it from the display if it is 0. It'll be a > prettier output for the user. It's becoming rather difficult to cope with epochs. OTOH they are skipped by usual rpm -qi, OTOH they have become even more crucial with the lack of promotion. So the user gets an error message about mismatched epochs and has to dig into rpm man pages to even find out the epochs of the packages involved :( For a developer it is sad that requirements _have_ to contain epochs. That way portability is blown to pieces :( </off topic rant> I'd go for always displaying the beast, if not for other reasons, then for pedagogical. Praying for an epoch free rpm 6.0 ... -- Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/attachments/20030811/b515268f/attachment.bin
