On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Jos Vos wrote: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 05:48:42PM +0200, Mariusz Mazur wrote: > > > Was there a reason why epoch (which is the most important part of the whole > > version tag) was never included in rpm file names? > > Because epoch was added later? > Because this would look confusing? > > The RPM header is leading, the filename is just a visual help for humans. > The only problem though is if you had a N where the VR was the same but the epoch was different, the filenames are the same. That is epoch 0 yields x-1-1 and epoch 1 yields x-1-1 when (N,V,R) are (x,1,1). Its unfortunate, but like you said there is a lot of tools expecting to find names as N-V-R.A.rpm. Cheers...james > > And while I'm at it - can you think of any bad side-effects of using > > epoch to differentate between major versions of a linux distro? I > > can't stop thinking > > It's just not meant for that and it would be an abuse of the epoch feature. > A much more succint answer than mine (-; Cheers...james _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
