On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:09:10 +0200, Doncho N. Gunchev wrote: > On 2004-12-16 (Thursday) 22:23, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:10:52 -0500, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I find it *incredibly* useful for this information to be in the filename. > > > > if its a useful thing to have in the filename.... then the vendor tag > > needs to become a standard part of the filename, instead of pushing > > more and more and more information into the same tag field. > > +1, but "Vendor: Dag Apt Repository, http://dag.wieers.com/apt/"; is > quite big to be in the filename, for example 'dag' is quite better. > Ex: autossh-1.2-1.f.0.rh9.dag.i386.rpm - name-ver.DIST.REPO.ARCH.rpm Still it's included in RPM version comparison, which is far from ideal, as there is no good reason why foo-1.0-1.fc3.zork.i386.rpm should be treated as newer than: foo-1.0-1.fc3.dag.i386.rpm Preferably, the "repo" tag would be part of the filename, but not part of the package release version.