On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 05:38:55PM +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. Which would assume those scripts only ever run on Fedora 9 or later. Any script which wants consistency *HAS* to use an explicit --qf if it wants to also work on older Fedora, or pretty much any other RPM distro. There's nothing we can do about this, because its just historical baggage. So making a change to add Epoch won't help consistency - it'll make it worse, and it'll also potentially break exisiting scripts not expecting an Epoch by default. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
