Changing the rpm default queryformat to include arch
jkeating at redhat.com
Wed Nov 28 15:33:41 UTC 2007
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:28:59 +0100
Nils Philippsen <nphilipp at redhat.com> wrote:
> Well, that probably works for situations where the epoch was a result
> of sloppy packaging. If an epoch is needed because upstream "rebases"
> versions (or upstream is "rebased" -- due to a forked project or
> whatever), it's going to be much fun for the maintainer if/when the
> versions clash with the old numberspace.
> What is the reasoning for needing to bump something else beside the
> epoch? As far as I'm concerned, epoch is the most significant part of
> the "combined version" of a package -- isn't that the case?
The most basic example, if you just bump epoch and nothing else, the
resultant file name is no different than the previous file name. You
can't store the two builds in the same directory, and it's quite
There are more, but flip it on it's head. Why would you ever /only/
bump the epoch and not also bump at least the release number? Release
is something we as a vendor control, which is our added numbering on
top of upstream's numbering. You wouldn't have to change version, just
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the fedora-devel-list