On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:31:27 -0500, Tony wrote:
> On 09-11-21 06:40:45, drago01 wrote:
> ...
> > You misunderstood me, I was not suggesting adding another epoch but
> > simply bump the %{epoch} for every release.
>
> If this were really important to do, just putting the release first in
> the version would take care of it without dragging in Epochs.
That's %build number (= super-Epoch) style:
1-2.10 < 2-2.10 < 3-2.10 < 4-2.20 < 5-2.3 (!) < 6-2.31 < 7-2.40
... [a year later] ... 1337-3.0 < 1338-3.0 < 1339-3.10
[Alternatively with %dist being higher than %version or higher than %build.]
What would you make the file names look like?
> Epoch is the big hammer, and is troublesome to use in practice.
Remember that you need to consider %epoch in any explicitly version
Requires/BuildRequires/Obsoletes/Conflicts, too.
Requires: foo > 2.10
would become what to get accurate? And considering upstream's versioning
scheme flaw where 2.3 followed 2.20. Once you add a kind of Epoch to
that dependency, you don't want it to update often, as every bump of
an Epoch-like value can invalidate a versioned dependency. Nasty.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
