[Fedora-packaging] Re: Guidelines and epochs

Fernando Nasser 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 
than 1.

> 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 mailing list