rpms/lft/devel lft.spec,1.6,1.7

Michael Schwendt bugs.michael at gmx.net
Thu Mar 3 09:00:00 UTC 2005


On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 00:17:33 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Cristian Gafton wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Matthias Saou wrote:
> > 
> > > Grrr... still, we seemed to have agreed to remove all zero epochs before
> > > FC3 Extras build... but you and Michael seem to have opposed it enough...
> > > now we're still stuck with issues... is this _never_ going to end? :-(

No, it's never going to end, because attempts at removing zero epochs have
been half-hearted so far. We sort of agreed on removing them, but package
owners was given enough freedom to choose whether to keep them. And with
the added -Fvh breakage, the topic died. Also, explicit epochs in
BuildRequires and Requires are still used, too.  

The Epoch indecision is going to end finally if somebody said: "Remove all
explicit zero epochs from CVS till March, 14th" or so. Then we all remove
them, and it won't be just individuals who break rpm -Fvh or who upset
users, who rebuild packages for older platforms and old RPM releases.

> > Frankly I could not give a damn about the fact that we break Freshen - these
> > things are fed through yum from a yum repository, so I really
> > don't care that rpm -F might fail in some weird conditions.
> > 
> > Epoch: 0 is stupid, useless and moronic.
> 
> Where were you 2 years ago ? We needed you back then :)

Two years ago, explicit Epoch 0 made sense.

Nowadays, the supported versions of RPM no longer require it.

-- 
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux 2.6.10-1.770_FC3
loadavg: 0.10 0.06 0.09




More information about the fedora-extras-commits mailing list