On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:59:59 +0200 (EET), Panu Matilainen wrote: > >>>> 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? Because no packager should ever bump %epoch without bumping %release. Rule of thumb: New build => new release. And yes, if %version changes, you update (i.e. reset) %release, too, usually. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
