On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 16:53 +0100, Aurelien Bompard wrote:
Hi all
In the new PackageNamingGuidelines, there is nothing about epochs. What is the new Extras policy regarding Epochs ? New packages should be created without Epochs, but what about Fedora.us imported packages ? Should I drop Epoch in the next releases ? Should I do it only for the devel branch ?
1. Look on the fedora-packaging list for the discussion 2. my guess is: a. if the fedora.us package had a non-zero epoch it needs to be maintained - just so users have an upgrade path b. if the fedora.us package had an Epoch: 0 drop it and remove %{epoch} from anyplace you have it in ver strings.
I'm cc'ing the packaging list to see if that seems right to them. -sv
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 11:24 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
- Look on the fedora-packaging list for the discussion
- my guess is:
a. if the fedora.us package had a non-zero epoch it needs to be maintained - just so users have an upgrade path b. if the fedora.us package had an Epoch: 0 drop it and remove %{epoch} from anyplace you have it in ver strings.
I agree with this. Anyone else have thoughts?
~spot --- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 11:24 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
- Look on the fedora-packaging list for the discussion
- my guess is:
a. if the fedora.us package had a non-zero epoch it needs to be maintained - just so users have an upgrade path b. if the fedora.us package had an Epoch: 0 drop it and remove %{epoch} from anyplace you have it in ver strings.
I agree with this. Anyone else have thoughts?
Fully agree, kill the stupid zero epochs. I think that's been happening already in extras to some extent but lots of them still exist.
- Panu -
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:19:15 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 11:24 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
- Look on the fedora-packaging list for the discussion
- my guess is:
a. if the fedora.us package had a non-zero epoch it needs to be maintained - just so users have an upgrade path b. if the fedora.us package had an Epoch: 0 drop it and remove %{epoch} from anyplace you have it in ver strings.
I agree with this. Anyone else have thoughts?
Dropping "Epoch: 0" breaks rpm -F updates. This is in bugzilla somewhere.
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 18:24 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:19:15 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 11:24 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
- Look on the fedora-packaging list for the discussion
- my guess is:
a. if the fedora.us package had a non-zero epoch it needs to be maintained - just so users have an upgrade path b. if the fedora.us package had an Epoch: 0 drop it and remove %{epoch} from anyplace you have it in ver strings.
I agree with this. Anyone else have thoughts?
Dropping "Epoch: 0" breaks rpm -F updates. This is in bugzilla somewhere.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/beta/show_bug.cgi?id=143301
Because of the above, removing "Epoch: 0"'s now is a bad idea. No objections here _after_ the above has been fixed in rpm and the fix shipped in a released distro version. OTOH there are no real world reasons that would require doing it even then.
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 18:24 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:19:15 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 11:24 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
- Look on the fedora-packaging list for the discussion
- my guess is:
a. if the fedora.us package had a non-zero epoch it needs to be maintained - just so users have an upgrade path b. if the fedora.us package had an Epoch: 0 drop it and remove %{epoch} from anyplace you have it in ver strings.
I agree with this. Anyone else have thoughts?
Dropping "Epoch: 0" breaks rpm -F updates. This is in bugzilla somewhere.
Fixed it. Hopefully, this will make it into FC4. For FC3 and earlier, we'll have to document it like this:
In Fedora Core 3 and earlier, there was a bug in rpm that caused the "-F" or "freshen" case to fail if you attempted to upgrade from a package that had "Epoch: 0" to a package that had no Epoch: value. Thus, for Extras packages in the Fedora Core 3 branch (or earlier), if the package has any Epoch: value defined (even 0), then all updates in that branch must also have an Epoch: value defined.
In the Extras Fedora Core 4 branch, you should not define Epoch: 0, even if earlier revisions of the package did. If earlier revisions of the package had a non-zero Epoch, you should keep Epoch, so that users have an upgrade path.
New packages (packages where there is no previous package to upgrade from) should not use Epoch.
Does that seem reasonable (pending the fix being included in FC4's rpm)?
~spot --- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Michael Schwendt -
Panu Matilainen -
seth vidal -
Tom Callaway -
Ville Skyttä