[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Epoch removing (was: Re: Contributions to Fedora)



Anthony Joseph Seward <anthony seward ieee org> wrote :

> > That's why, for such packages, you'll need to "rpm -e --nodeps" the old
> > one, then "rpm -Uvh" or "apt-get install" the new one :-/
> > 
> 
> Can't he just do 'rpm -Uvh --oldpackage'?

Yes, but sometimes (like during an apt dist-upgrade), it's easier to remove
the old-but-considered-newer package, and let apt reinstall the new one to
fullfill the dependency problem it had created.

> > I plan on dropping all epochs in all packages built for the next Red
> > Hat Linux release, except of course of the ones Red Hat also has epoch
> > tags set.
> > 
> 
> I think that the RPM maintainer has taken the position that RPMs that
> don't have epochs are broken (I think I saw this on the rpm-list).  I
> hope I'm mistaken and I'm not thrilled about this, but it does indicate
> that for dependencies to work properly, epochs are needed.  RPMs without
> an explicit epoch tag have, I think, an implied epoch of '0'.

>From what I've understood, currently an epoch of "0" is considered newer
than a package without any, but soon, both will be equivalent, thus the
epoch will need to be set to at least 1 to be really useful.

Matthias

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Red Hat Linux release 8.0.9x (Phoebe) running Linux kernel 2.4.20-2.44
Load : 0.18 0.24 0.27, AC on-line, battery charging: 100% (5:55)





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]