[Fedora-packaging] Re: Guidelines and epochs
fnasser at redhat.com
Mon Jan 8 16:03:54 UTC 2007
Axel Thimm wrote:
> Please remember what the true use of an epoch is, e.g. to override the
> version for whatever reason. If something goes like 1.09, 1.10, then
> you need the epoch because rpm sorts differently. And you would need
> it for any virtual provides, too.
Axel, 1.10 wins over 1.09. Why do you need an Epoch in this case?
> The reason Michael is proposing to use virtual dependencies is because
> at the beginning you think that you can evade epochs. They look like a
> secondary version. But unless there is strict control to not mess up
> you'll end up in the same scenarios requiring epochs like for
> conventional versioning.
Epochs should be just: 1, 2, 3, 4... although I never saw it greather
> E.g. don't get fooled by that trick, it is more papering over than
> dealing with epochs. And once you start introducing "second-tier"
> epochs the confusion will be perfect.
No need for second-tier epochs if people don't add anything than single
integer digits in there, anmd only use Epochs as a last resource case.
The 1-9 range should last for the decade at least.
More information about the Fedora-packaging