On Nov 27, 2007 6:19 AM, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If limiting visibility of the epochs is the argument, then why is it ok > for end user tools such as pirut (not to mention yum itself and all > related tools) to show them? Putting the epoch into the filename output as the second most significant piece of information will be more disruptive to shell scriptable interactions than tacking on the arch at the end. Putting the information into an interactive interface that people do not commonly rely on in a scripted way is far less disruptive. I'm not going to judge whether or not its worth doing, but I'm telling you right now that there will a large need for a re-education program concerning the epoch information if it goes in. We'll need you to blog about it preemptively and possibly provide some information in the form of a feature item, such as how to revert this change for legacy needs, information that documentation writers can reformat and distribute as needed. Also it would be instructive to know if such a change is planned to be propagated forward into the next RHEL release. Please consider something other than the colon character as a separator so we don't disrupt the ability to backup rpm package files into fat filesystems. There are a lot of external enclosures out there with big disks with fat filesystems being used for backups in small IT situations (home office, personal use and things of that nature.) Making a filenaming change which disrupts the ability to backup the files seems an unnecessary complication. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
