On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 09:41:56 -0500, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd also change the format to "the smallest possible integer". Epoch's
> are already a pain as small integers like "1" or "2". Imagine as
> "anything that is suited for the version/release tags is also suited here".
>
> Also, I have mixed feeling about this. As there are some packages that
> for historic reasons had to have their Epoch bumped, it is very easy to
> forget to add the "1:" in front of the dependency versions. The other
> thing is that RPMs deal with "EVR" where "E" stands for "Epoch", so I
> wonder if the right thing wouldn't be to make that clear by having the
> Epoch, Version and Release tags all there, always (even if zero).
The packaging guidelines request already that wherever a versioned
dependency is used, the Epoch must be added.
Better would be to keep Epoch out of explicit versioned dependencies
completely and rely on Epoch-less "Provides". Example: Instead of doing
"BuildRequires: gtk+-devel >= 1:1.2.10" (notice the Epoch) one would do
"BuildRequires: gtk+(api) >= 1.2.10" and gtk+-devel would "Provides:
gtk+(abi) = %{version}" regardless of its"Epoch: 1" in the package.
The Epoch would continue to aid package resolvers.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
