On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 03:07:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > What's seeming like a better option is to bump the package's Epoch > for the systemd-native release. > > Discuss. Epoch would work for this. We didn't put Epoch into the guidelines because there's a general consensus that epoch is easy for packagers to get wrong (in terms of remembering to add the epoch ot their dependencies) and its unfortunately, not very visible to people consuming packages (it's not in the default rpm filename, for instance). The guidelines do not prohibit the use of epoch here... but if you do use it, it'll saddle package maintainers with the need to remember it in their dependencies forever. Ville recently proposed a different set of scriptlets that would do away with triggers but no one's committed to testing that the triggers work in all cases (lots of package upgrades and lots of reboots are needed to test that the scriptlets upgrade packages the way they're intended to). http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2011-July/007846.html Regarding the fragility argument in reply to notting's clarification; do note that the fragility there only lasts until that Fedora release goes EOL and therefore can no longer receive updates) less than a year now for Fedora 15. The fragility of packagers remembering that the package has an epoch seems lower on a case-by-case basis but its effect lasts for as long as we ship that package. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgplpFbVfN6Ok.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
