On 10/07/2017 06:31 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:33:38AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
I'm personally very in favor of this; of course my usual refrain
here is that we should *try* new things and have the ability
to back them out if they don't work (the latter bit is what the
current system doesn't support).
You know, we could easily _start_ supporting the thing you want if we
switched from "Epoch is a horrible confusing hack that should never get
used" to "We increment Epoch every time instead of Release (and don't
reset back to 1 on new versions)".
We could even define Release to %{epoch} and remove it from spec files,
giving a user-visible indicator, even if that's not what the tools sort
on. Or, I guess, we could to the other way around and define Epoch to
equal release.
This will break updates across Fedora releases (or any kind of
branches). It would boil down to “always use distro-sync after
switching branches”. That's not far from “always use distro-sync”, at
which point we don't really need ordered version numbers anymore (except
maybe for checks in RPM scriptlets, but those would like not work
correctly with the epoch change as well).
Florian
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
