On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:24:18 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 13:10 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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} ? :)
> >
> > FWIW, upstream rpm.org now uses this as the default queryformat and
> > supports it in queries etc:
> > [pmatilai@localhost rpm]$ ./rpmq -q gimp-2:2.4.1-1.fc8.x86_64
> > gimp-2:2.4.1-1.fc8.x86_64
> -1
Oh, yes, add my -1 here, too. Epoch is implicit in versioned requirements [1],
so please don't make it explicit in file names. This only pours gasoline
into the fire. RPM dependency hell is back, stronger than ever.
> > The epoch is the most significant factor in version comparison, might as
> > well show it...
> with this queryformat people now will start bitching on why they can't
> find a file of this name - the same applies to "all small letters file
> names".
This is half-baked so far and only adds a lot of confusion.
--
[1] Requires: foo > 4.0 and foo-1:0.9-1.fc8.noarch.rpm is sufficient.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
