Changing the rpm default queryformat to include arch

[Panu Matilainen]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 13:53 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:24:18 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 13:10 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Callum Lerwick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 10:49 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>>>>> To put it shortly, I going to switch the default rpm queryformat to
>>>>>> include package architecture (ie what you get now with
>>>>>> rpm -q --qf "%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n") in a few days or
>>>>>> so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not %{name}-%|epoch?{%{epoch}:}|%{version}-%{release}.%{arch} ? :)
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, upstream rpm.org now uses this as the default queryformat and
>>>> supports it in queries etc:
>>>> [pmatilai at localhost rpm]$ ./rpmq -q gimp-2:2.4.1-1.fc8.x86_64
>>>> gimp-2:2.4.1-1.fc8.x86_64
>>> -1
>>
>> Oh, yes, add my -1 here, too. Epoch is implicit in versioned requirements [1],
>> so please don't make it explicit in file names. This only pours gasoline
>> into the fire. RPM dependency hell is back, stronger than ever.
>
> For what its worth, I agree. Epoch in the file name is a bad idea.

Why do you think it's bad - because of the ':' used as separator, or 
"just because" (epochs are evil and all that)?

Currently you can store different versions and releases of a package 
within a directory without them clashing - why is it ok for packages with 
different epochs to clash in that situation?

 	- Panu -