seth vidal wrote: >On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 16:38, Paul Pianta wrote: > > >>Hi >> >>I am wondering about the naming syntax for the 'version number' of >>certain packages in /var/log/yum.log ... >> >>After installing the 'gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-11.3.0.i386.rpm' and >>'gtk+-1.2.10-28.1.i386.rpm' packages with yum - yum.log gives me this ... >>--- >>10/07/04 17:49:48 Installed: gdk-pixbuf 1:0.22.0-3.0.i386 >>10/07/04 17:49:48 Installed: gtk+ 1:1.2.10-28.1.i386 >>--- >> >>I am wondering why yum logs the package versions with a '1:' in front of >>the actual version. Any ideas? >> >> >> > >it's the epoch. > >-sv > Ah ok - epoch is new to me. Epoch - A fixed point of time, established in history by the occurrence of some grand or remarkable event. I don't really see why rpm packages need a value for epoch. (Although the first rpm release of yum could arguably be defined as a grand or remarkable event - thus justifying an epoch value :) ) Are the 'version' and 'release' values of an rpm not enough to define incremental periods in the history of the package? And I guess the epoch value will only be displayed in yum.log if 'Epoch' was defined in the rpm's spec file when built. Am I right? thanks pantz -- Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes ... That way when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes!
