On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote: > 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 There's also no good reason why the opposite should be true, in fact there's no ideal solution in this case. So no reason why it is far from ideal either. And you know what, if the repo-tag was not included it would be even worse for RPM tools as there would be no distinctive identifier to indicate which one it should take. At least now you can specify based on that. > Preferably, the "repo" tag would be part of the filename, but not part > of the package release version. No, then tools like Yum would not display it and it would not be in the package database. It would be better than no repo-tag, but having it in the release is what makes it more useful, the filename is for many irelevant as they're not confronted with it when using yum or apt. -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]