On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 11:03:54AM -0500, Fernando Nasser wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > > > >Please remember what the true use of an epoch is, e.g. to override the > >version for whatever reason. If something goes like 1.09, 1.10, then > >you need the epoch because rpm sorts differently. And you would need > >it for any virtual provides, too. > > > > Axel, 1.10 wins over 1.09. Why do you need an Epoch in this case? Sorry, I meant 1.1 vs 1.09. > Epochs should be just: 1, 2, 3, 4... although I never saw it greather > than 1. mozilla was at over 35, bind is at 30+, aspell-de/en is at 50, arpwatch, dhclient, tcpdump 10+, and een kdebase/kdelibs at 6. > >E.g. don't get fooled by that trick, it is more papering over than > >dealing with epochs. And once you start introducing "second-tier" > >epochs the confusion will be perfect. > > No need for second-tier epochs if people don't add anything than single > integer digits in there, anmd only use Epochs as a last resource case. > The 1-9 range should last for the decade at least. With second-tier I was referring to the virtual provides. E.g. you have Provides: foo-abi = 1.09 and then you will need Provides: foo-abi = 1:1.1 That's what I means with second-tier epochs. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpHhyLk7J4TX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
