New APT Repo for Tripwire project - added pan-

Michael Schwendt ms-nospam-0306 at
Sun Nov 30 04:32:30 UTC 2003

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:36:55 +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:

> > Don't increase the Epoch without reason!
> > 
> > Also, as a 3rd party package, your package should be release 0.fdr.1, so
> > a package upgrade in Fedora Core would upgrade your one.
> Michael, I must admit that I really don't understand Epochs.
> This was my thinking:
> If this is a release based on a) new beta source and b) a new fedora
> specific build, then I reasoned that the release should be x.fdr.1 with an
> Epoch of 0.

No, it ought to be release 0.fdr.x with the same Epoch as in the previous
> I tried that, and rpm rejected the new package as an older release,

Yes, because the Epoch comparison overrides the version-release
comparison. is greater than 0.14.2 is still greater than 0.14.2-2
  0: is considered lower than 1:0.14.2-2

> so I
> surmised that the old Epoch (2) was superseding the release version.

"Epoch: 1" would have been enough, because > 0.14.2

> Are you saying that 0: is supposed to supersede
> 1:0.14.2-2,


> or should I simply have matched the Epoch with 1?

> This is a completely unofficial build, but for those who are sticklers for
> details, I will happily renumber the release/Epoch and rebuild.

Unofficial or not, would you want anyone to run into problems? ;)
Such as failed upgrades because RPM says pan-0.15-2 is older than

> Incidentally, what *are* valid reasons for bumping the Epoch?

E.g. but not limited to, an upgrade path from package foo-1.0pre2-1 to
foo-1.0-1, where RPM version comparison treats 1.0pre2 as greater than
1.0. [The package versioning guidelines avoid that by moving the
"pre2" into the release tag.]

Or an upstream package split which causes an upgrade path from foo-2.0-3
and libfoo-2.0-3 to foo-2.1-1 and a new separated libfoo-0.5-1.

Or binary incompatibility, where you want to make sure the user really has
libfoo >= 2.0 compiled with the proper compiler version.

You can check out the fedora-rpmvercmp tool if you want to experiment with
RPM versioning.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the fedora-list mailing list