Re: Changing the rpm default queryformat to include arch

[Panu Matilainen <pmatilai laiskiainen org>]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 13:53 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:24:18 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 13:10 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 10:49 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > > > > To put it shortly, I going to switch the default rpm queryformat to
> > > > > > include package architecture (ie what you get now with
> > > > > > rpm -q --qf "%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n") in a few days or
> > > > > > so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not %{name}-%|epoch?{%{epoch}:}|%{version}-%{release}.%{arch} ? :)
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, upstream rpm.org now uses this as the default queryformat and
> > > > supports it in queries etc:
> > > > [pmatilai localhost rpm]$ ./rpmq -q gimp-2:2.4.1-1.fc8.x86_64
> > > > gimp-2:2.4.1-1.fc8.x86_64
> > > -1
> >
> > Oh, yes, add my -1 here, too. Epoch is implicit in versioned requirements [1],
> > so please don't make it explicit in file names. This only pours gasoline
> > into the fire. RPM dependency hell is back, stronger than ever.
>
> For what its worth, I agree. Epoch in the file name is a bad idea.

Why do you think it's bad - because of the ':' used as separator, or 
"just because" (epochs are evil and all that)?

Currently you can store different versions and releases of a package 
within a directory without them clashing - why is it ok for packages with 
different epochs to clash in that situation?

	- Panu -