[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: RPM naming question.-part 2



On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 18:00 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > Not only did this program not do what you incate it does, it seems to
> > give me the opposite answer:
> > [root localhost ~]# fedora-rpmvercmp  
> > Epoch1 :0
> > Version1 :6
> > Release1 :5-7
> > Epoch2 :0
> > Version2 :6
> > Release2 :5-7L
> > 0:6-5-7L is newer
> > 
> > How come?
> 
> Because if you have foo-0.6.5-7L.fc7, the epoch is unset (which is the
> same as 0 to rpm), the version is 0.6.5, and the release is 7L.fc7.
> 
> $ fedora-rpmvercmp 
> Epoch1 :0
> Version1 :0.6.5 
> Release1 :7L.fc7
> Epoch2 :0
> Version2 :0.6.5 
> Release2 :7.fc7
> 0:0.6.5-7.fc7 is newer
You are right, as I later figured out. However in the spec file in this
case the Epoch is 1 not 0. I am not sure what that signifies.
--
=======================================================================
Dear Lord: I just want *___one* one-armed manager so I never have to
hear "On the other hand", again.
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam sbcglobal net


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]