On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 18:24 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:19:15 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 11:24 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> >
> > >1. Look on the fedora-packaging list for the discussion
> > >2. my guess is:
> > > a. if the fedora.us package had a non-zero epoch it needs to be
> > >maintained - just so users have an upgrade path
> > > b. if the fedora.us package had an Epoch: 0 drop it and remove
> > >%{epoch} from anyplace you have it in ver strings.
> >
> > I agree with this. Anyone else have thoughts?
>
> Dropping "Epoch: 0" breaks rpm -F updates. This is in bugzilla
> somewhere.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/beta/show_bug.cgi?id=143301
Because of the above, removing "Epoch: 0"'s now is a bad idea. No
objections here _after_ the above has been fixed in rpm and the fix
shipped in a released distro version. OTOH there are no real world
reasons that would require doing it even then.
