Disttag for Fedora 7 and beyond

[seth vidal]

On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 14:15 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-01-05 at 10:25 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 09:55:50AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >>> Start using stricter versioning with Epoch bumps as necessary,
> >> Ouch! Anything but epochs!
> > 
> > Why?  I keep hearing epochs are the spawn of satan.  It's just a
> > number... why are they so bad?
> 
> One reason is that they're opaque to several common use cases, with
> current RPM versions.
> 
> Neither "rpm -q" nor "rpm -qi" show Epochs. Neither are epochs included
> in RPM file names. Now arguably this is a problem with RPM rather than
> with epochs, but until the defaults change in RPM it can make things
> confusing and awkward.  Try explaining to a non-RPM expert why doing this:
> 
> rpm -i foo-1.0.i386.rpm
> rpm -U foo-1.1.i386.rpm
> 
> gives an error about foo-1.1 being an older version. (in the case that
> the Epoch on foo-1.1 is lower than that on foo-1.0)
> 
> Even though I'm a packager and I know about epochs, I still occasionally
> have a head-scratching moment related to something like this.
> 

yum list shows epochs. if it is any consolation.

-sv