>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Nasrat <pnasrat@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: Paul> On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 12:38 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> In the process of doing a mass rebuild here of all extras packages >> for current devel/fc5 under mock I ran into an interesting issue: >> >> The following packages were released at some point with a "Epoch: >> 0" set. If you have EVER release a package with an Epoch, you need >> to keep that around forever after if you expect updates to work. >> >> This is due to the fact that a package with a Epoch of 0 is always >> considered to be newer than a package with no Epoch at all. Paul> This is not true anymore, and hasn't been since rpm 4.2.1. Dho. You are quite right. :( I thought it was still the case... I think http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tools/RPM/VersionComparison needs to be updated to reflect that. I guess the thing that threw me off was yum reporting packages with "0:" at the front even though they really didn't have Epochs. I will try and track down the real problem... Paul> Paul kevin
Attachment:
pgp5sNU5efSkm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
