tcpdump and elm questions.

[Christian Pearce]

Johnny Strom said:
> 
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > On Friday 16 January 2004 08:08, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > 
> >>epoch always wins in a version comparison.  Package-4.2 with epoch 14 is
> >>considered newer than Package-8.1 with epoch 13.  For this reason, I do
> >>believe you should set the epoch of the newer distro up by one.  Correct
> >>me if I'm wrong, but this will ensure that the package gets updated if
> >>somebody upgrades from 7.2 to 7.3.  Otherwise, since they have the same
> >>name, the package wouldn't get upgraded.  I don't particularly like
> >>epoch, but since it's already in use here, might as well take advantage
> >>of it.
> > 
> > 
> > Ok, some folks have thwacked me upside the head with a big foam clue bat.  
> > Leave epoch alone.  Just bump the build number to indicate a newer 
> > package.  Take the existing largest build number for the package, and bump 
> > it by one for 7.1, by 2 for 7.2, by 3 for 7.3, etc..
> > 
> > Does this make sense?
> 
> 
> Yes it seems fine.

I guess it isn't for me.  I want to try and clarify.

In all cases leave epoch alone.

We use the same spec file but the _revisions_ are different.

elm:

dist|orig|legacy
7.2 elm-2.5.6-1 -> elm-2.5.6.3.legacy
7.3 elm-2.5.6-2 -> elm-2.5.6.3.legacy

tcpdump:
7.2 tcpdump-3.6.3-17.7.2.3 -> tcpdump-3.6.3-17.7.2.4.legacy
7.3 tcpdump-3.6.3-17.7.3.3 -> tcpdump-3.6.3-17.7.3.4.legacy
8.0 tcpdump-3.6.3-17.8.0.3 -> tcpdump-3.6.3-17.8.0.4.legacy

Is this correct?