RPM naming question.

[Todd Zullinger]

Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> It should be seen as a later version, so it should upgrade.

It would appear so to human parsers, but not to rpm (unless I've done
something wrong with the fedora-rpmvercmp script :).

> If RPM has problem with your naming, you can also use the Epoch tag.

Epoch is nasty and should be avoided whenever possible.  Once you use
it in a package, you're stuck with it for a long time.  It's much
better to fix the version and release tags so that rpm will do what
you need it to do with an epoch.

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't
matter and those who matter don't mind.
    -- Dr Seuss, "Oh the Places You'll Go"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20070712/26ce3a6f/attachment-0001.sig>