On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 13:53 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 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.
For what its worth, I agree. Epoch in the file name is a bad idea.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
