A word on the Evils of Epoch

[Kevin Fenzi]

>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Nasrat <pnasrat at redhat.com> writes:

Paul> On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 12:38 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> In the process of doing a mass rebuild here of all extras packages
>> for current devel/fc5 under mock I ran into an interesting issue:
>> 
>> The following packages were released at some point with a "Epoch:
>> 0" set. If you have EVER release a package with an Epoch, you need
>> to keep that around forever after if you expect updates to work.
>> 
>> This is due to the fact that a package with a Epoch of 0 is always
>> considered to be newer than a package with no Epoch at all.

Paul> This is not true anymore, and hasn't been since rpm 4.2.1.

Dho. You are quite right. :( I thought it was still the case...

I think http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tools/RPM/VersionComparison
needs to be updated to reflect that. 

I guess the thing that threw me off was yum reporting packages with
"0:" at the front even though they really didn't have Epochs. 

I will try and track down the real problem...

Paul> Paul

kevin


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060128/ad0e7c07/attachment.sig>