Re: Should there be BuildRequires for perl/libtool/auto*?

[Warren Togami <warren togami com>]

Michael Honeyfield wrote:
> > > If you require a specific version of any package, then you MUST include 
> > > an Epoch in that dependency.  If the Epoch is blank, then make it "0".
> >
> > Why? Can you give a good reason to introduce "0" in every versionned
> > dependency? I can only think of reasons _not_ to :
> > - Keep things shorter, clearer thus easier to understand
> > - Not confuse the user with the arbitrary number that the epoch is when he
> >  gets a message like "Failed dependencies, requires foo >= 1.20"
> >
> > Epochs are only used in corner-cases, why make them appear in the general
> > case at all?
> >
> > I still don't think introducing a zero epoch everywhere is sensible nor
> > useful.
> >
> > Matthias
>
>
> Does RPM not handle epoch value as 0? or am I mistaken? I am of the opinion and understanding that epoch should be avoided at all costs where possible. So not defining it would make more sense than defining it for the sake of doing so, since RPM (still not sure) assumes a 0 value for undefined epoch values. 
>
> Mike

We've gone through this a million times, and some people just do not 
understand.  I do not use FreshRPMS so I no longer care that all of 
those packages are potentially broken when it comes to epoch promotion.

fedora.us had this policy for the last 9 months for a good reason.  Just 
do it, or your package will not be accepted into Fedora Extras.

Warren