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

Re: [Freeipa-devel] Fedora 20 Release



On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 10:16 -0700, Rich Megginson wrote:
> On 12/16/2013 10:12 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
> > On 16.12.2013 17:55, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Dec 2013, Rich Megginson wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Simo thinks that this is a reason why 'downgrade package' with 
> >>>>>>>> 1.3.1.x
> >>>>>>>> inevitably needs automated script which will purge two missing 
> >>>>>>>> plugins
> >>>>>>>> from dse.ldif.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We have an upgrade/downgrade framework, it should be easy to
> >>>>>>> disable/remove these plugins.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is that it?  Are there any other problems found attempting to 
> >>>>>>> downgrade
> >>>>>>> 1.3.2 to 1.3.1 in F20?
> >>>>>> Packaging issue -- epoch will have to be increased and maintained
> >>>>>> forever. It is weird but that's what it is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure.  But that's a one time thing.  And, it's only for F20 - once 
> >>>>> we go
> >>>>> to F21, we can remove the epoch.
> >>>> No, and that's key here. Once Epoch is in place, it is forever.
> >>>
> >>> Why?
> >> Because that's how RPM is built. When Epoch value is absent it is
> >> assumed to be equal to 0.
> >> 1.3.1.18-1 will be equal to 0:1.3.1.18-1 and less than 1.3.2.8-1,
> >> however, 1:1.3.1.18-1 will be greater than 1.3.2.8-1 because the latter
> >> is equal to 0:1.3.2.8-1.
> >>
> >> Once epoch is there, it is to stay.
> >
> > Anyway, is it a real problem? Personally, I consider it like 
> > yet-another-version-number.
> >
> > On my Fedora 19:
> > $ repoquery -qa | wc -l
> > 46645
> > (packages in total)
> >
> > $ repoquery -qa | grep -- '-[1-9][0-9]*:' | wc -l
> > 6581
> > (packages with non-zero epoch)
> >
> No, not a real problem, but just one more hassle I'd rather not have to 
> deal with.

Yes it is a real problem, it is extremely confusing to people, because
it is not in the rpm file name.

It should be avoided if at all possible, and it is an unremovable tattoo
once you have it on.

So a decision to add an epoch number should never be taken lightly.

If you do not understand why, you should probably not set epochs.

Simo.


-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York


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