Re: Undefined %epoch problem (Re: rawhide report: 20150730 changes)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 08/28/2015 02:18 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:59:12 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

The version tags "ver" and "rel" attributes may also be non-numerical.
Why not "epoch", too?

I haven't looked into the sources, but IIRC, inside of rpm, while rel,
ver etc. are strings, epoch is an integer.

See:

   https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-August/213209.html
   https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-August/213208.html

Bugs ... an undefined epoch is supposed to be treated as 0.

I guess you also recall - the ability of some tools not to be able to cope with this was the origin why Fedora.us and early Fedoras once mandated Epoch: 0.

Plus, RPM would not get to see repository metadata, but only downloaded
packages, which contain the same bad Epoch values.

Ralf

--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux