On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Nils Philippsen wrote:
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.
Hardly. It would however stop the ages old pretense of epochs being some
mysterious invisible evil people are afraid to talk aloud of. It would
also largely stop the "look I found a bug in rpm: it thinks foo-1.2 is
newer than foo-2.0" reports/questions.
To go that route I think the default file name should also be changed to
include epoch if present. Would probably break another big bunch of
scripts people have, but relying on filename for rpm name and version
information is very broken to begin with anyway (and easily fixed)
The ugly part is that it makes parsing harder as you have to account for
the possibility of epoch being or not being there always, but OTOH you can
always pick your own queryformat if you don't want to deal with it.
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
That can be fix.
- Panu -
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
