On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote:
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.
Why do you think it's bad - because of the ':' used as separator, or
"just because" (epochs are evil and all that)?
Currently you can store different versions and releases of a package
within a directory without them clashing - why is it ok for packages with
different epochs to clash in that situation?
- Panu -
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
