Disttag for Fedora 7 and beyond

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 08:05:24PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 19:09:00 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > > and the next update needed at least 23:3.0.  E.g. the epoch
> > > > inflation everywhere make it mandatory to start checking all your
> > > > versioned BRs and
> > > 
> > > Versioned BRs are not affected, since the RPM Epoch never specifies an
> > > API version.
> > 
> > What makes you say this? How about epoch of the perl package itself?
> 
> It is specific to the RPM package, not defined by Perl at all.
> 
> > They very much define the ABI/API in this case by themselves.
> 
> There is no Epoch in Perl's versioning scheme. Not in the old one,
> and not in the new one either.

Ehem, perl itself is currently at epoch 4. Any package that needs to
define that it needs a specific range of perl ABI/API to work
with/build against needs to know the version-epoch mapping history of
perl or to reply on artificially virtual provides.

> Why do you want to add Epochs to versioned Perl dependencies?

I don't, but if there are such I have to. Say for example that xmltv
depends on perl(Lingua::Preferred) >= 0.2.4.  If perl-Lingua-Preferred
had an epoch the above check would need to get this epoch added and
properly maintained by humans or machines.

Anyway the world would be a better place w/o epochs. :)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- 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-maintainers/attachments/20070105/ba63e0f1/attachment.sig>