Jeff Spaleta wrote: > I'm not saying this as an argument against doing it. I'm saying when > you do it, it will be relatively more painful to add a new epoch field > internal to the string than tacking on information at the end of the > querystring AND the package filename. We should make a vocal > preemptive effort to get the word out before this lands in a release > to take the edge off the disgruntled bloodlust for making a change. > There is discussion in this thread about changing the filename as well > as the rpmdb querystring to be self-consistent in terms of displaying > the epoch. Any scripting against package filenames will be disrupted > by a new epoch field and I think that deserves some effort to raise > awareness sooner rather than later. > > -jef This is an incredibly important point for everyone to stand back and think through... the people this kind of 'small and relatively innocuous' change effects are NOT all reading this list and commenting. They are the people who have no idea the change is coming, and won't notice until to their amazement its breaking their previously working custom scripts in their own little lab environment, etc. 'How much can an epoch in filenames hurt'? Thats hard to say. What does it solve? Nothing that everyone isn't already used to dealing with. -- Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@xxxxxxxxx> <ajfarris@xxxxxxxxx> gpg 0xC99B1DF3 at pgp.mit.edu No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer ---- ---- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
