On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:28:59 +0100 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well, that probably works for situations where the epoch was a result > of sloppy packaging. If an epoch is needed because upstream "rebases" > versions (or upstream is "rebased" -- due to a forked project or > whatever), it's going to be much fun for the maintainer if/when the > versions clash with the old numberspace. > > What is the reasoning for needing to bump something else beside the > epoch? As far as I'm concerned, epoch is the most significant part of > the "combined version" of a package -- isn't that the case? The most basic example, if you just bump epoch and nothing else, the resultant file name is no different than the previous file name. You can't store the two builds in the same directory, and it's quite confusing. There are more, but flip it on it's head. Why would you ever /only/ bump the epoch and not also bump at least the release number? Release is something we as a vendor control, which is our added numbering on top of upstream's numbering. You wouldn't have to change version, just release. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
