On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:13:29 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:38:41 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 13:28 -0600, Brian Millett wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Results follow:
> > > > > .....
> > > > > --> Running transaction check
> > > > > --> Processing Dependency: aalib = %{epoch}:1.4.0-0.rc5.2 for package:
> > > > > aalib-devel
> > > > > ValueError: invalid literal for long(): %{epoch}
> > > >
> > > > Looks like garbage in the epoch field of aalib.
> > > >
> > > > I'll take a look at both yum and the pkg.
> > > >
> > > > could you open a bug on this?
> > >
> > > Not necessary. Ran into it, too. Spec was bad. Epoch was dropped, but
> > > %epoch still used. Fixed.
> >
> > Ah, sweet irony.
>
> No irony here, just an incomplete change and commit by somebody.
The irony is that it still bites almost 2 years after nobody wanted to
have it in the first place and it still ended up in the official policy
because of a misinterpreted JBJ comment. Simplicity and implicitly.
http://www.fedora.us/pipermail/fedora-devel/2003-April/000795.html
http://www.fedora.us/pipermail/fedora-devel/2003-May/001396.html
http://www.fedora.us/pipermail/fedora-devel/2003-June/001422.html
-- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]