On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 17:38 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
> >> Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Can't you unconditionally have a epoch number listed all the time? 0
> >> if there is no epoch for that package.
> >
> > Obviously you CAN, but do you REALLY want to?
>
> Personally, yes. I would like to see epoch listed always so that we get
> a consistent format for other scripts to parse.
Scripts can always use "--qf ...". I'd argue that people who use rpm
interactively in most cases don't want to see the epoch prefixed if
there is none. And there is none:
nils@gibraltar:~> rpm -q --qf '%{n}-%{epoch}:%{v}-%{r}.%{arch}\n' initscripts
initscripts-(none):8.60-1.x86_64
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
