[Fedora-packaging] Guidelines and epochs

Michael Schwendt bugs.michael at gmx.net
Mon Jan 8 15:15:33 UTC 2007

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 09:41:56 -0500, Fernando Nasser wrote:

> Hi,
> I'd also change the format to "the smallest possible integer".  Epoch's 
> are already a pain as small integers like "1" or "2".  Imagine as 
> "anything that is suited for the version/release tags is also suited here".
> Also, I have mixed feeling about this.  As there are some packages that 
> for historic reasons had to have their Epoch bumped, it is very easy to 
> forget to add the "1:" in front of the dependency versions.  The other 
> thing is that RPMs deal with "EVR" where "E" stands for "Epoch", so I 
> wonder if the right thing wouldn't be to make that clear by having the 
> Epoch, Version and Release tags all there, always (even if zero).

The packaging guidelines request already that wherever a versioned
dependency is used, the Epoch must be added.

Better would be to keep Epoch out of explicit versioned dependencies
completely and rely on Epoch-less "Provides". Example: Instead of doing
"BuildRequires: gtk+-devel >= 1:1.2.10" (notice the Epoch) one would do
"BuildRequires: gtk+(api) >= 1.2.10" and gtk+-devel would "Provides:
gtk+(abi) = %{version}" regardless of its"Epoch: 1" in the package.
The Epoch would continue to aid package resolvers.

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list