On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 08:28 +0100, nodata wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 22.11.2007, 17:00 -0600 schrieb Callum Lerwick:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 10:49 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > To put it shortly, I going to switch the default rpm queryformat to
> > > include package architecture (ie what you get now with
> > > rpm -q --qf "%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n") in a few days or
> > > so.
> >
> > Not %{name}-%|epoch?{%{epoch}:}|%{version}-%{release}.%{arch} ? :)
> That would encourage the use of epochs.
I don't think so -- "Look, this package has an epoch, I'll add that to
my package too"? Hardly. If I'm interested in the version of a package,
I'm interested in the epoch, too, if there's one. IMO, the only reason
against listing the epoch here is that RPM itself doesn't understand it
when specifying packages:
nils@wombat:~> rpm -q gimp-2:2.4.1-1.fc8.x86_64
package gimp-2:2.4.1-1.fc8.x86_64 is not installed
nils@wombat:~> rpm -q gimp-2.4.1-1.fc8.x86_64
gimp-2.4.1-1.fc8
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
