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

[Matthias Saou]

Warren Togami wrote :

> 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.

Why is that!? No official Red Hat packages have epoch set to 0 (see "rpm
-qa --qf '%{epoch}\t%{name}\n'" output), and AFAIK, rpm >= 4.2 treats no
epoch as 0.
So, as Fedora Extras will probably only start with FC2, and should include
guidelines and policies applicable to Fedora Core too, I really don't see
the reason to systematically introduce a zero epoch into each and every
possible package now. For rpm < 4.2, maybe, but again, it's a little far
away now to be an important matter.

Why would I say "Epochs are evil" but go and set them to zero everywhere
when it can be sanely avoided now?

I guess we're up to one million and one now.

Matthias

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow) - Linux kernel 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl
Load : 0.59 0.27 0.22