On Saturday 28 July 2012 14:47:28 you wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 12:36:26 +0000 > Fedora Rawhide Report <rawhide@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > > > --------------------------- > > * Fri Jul 27 2012 - Andreas Schneider <asn@xxxxxxxxxx> - > > 2:4.0.0-132.beta4 > > - Don't define an Epoch in RHEL releases. > > May I ask why? > > This makes it harder to compare versions between Fedora and RHEL. I > know it is not a 1:1 mapping anyway, but it is useful to see branching > points etc. > > Differing Epoch will be confusing later down the road, I think. It's > not like it's in the way? [reply to the list] The Epoch in the Fedora samba4 package has been added to be able to correctly conflict with samba packages. The samba packages bumped the epoch some time ago for a special update path. The RHEL samba package doesn't have any epoch set, so Epoch is 0. There is no reason why the samba4 packages in RHEL should have an Epoch of 2. Dealing with an Epoch > 0 and Requires, Conflicts, Obsoletes etc. makes your live a lot harder. If RHEL doesn't have any Epoch set, I don't see a reason why it should be set to 2 and make our life harder packaging for RHEL. Better readability of a diff between RHEL and Fedora isn't an argument. Having to spend days to get different Epoch numbers in Conflicts: Requires: and Obsoletes: correctly and testing them with different installations is an argument. It is valueable time I can spent on other things. Cheers, -- andreas -- Andreas Schneider GPG-ID: 8B7EB4B8 Red Hat asn@xxxxxxxxxx Samba Team asn@xxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
