On 09/10/2013 03:27 PM, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a. Dimstar wrote:
Quoting Sascha Peilicke <speilicke@suse.com>:
On 09/10/2013 02:38 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
Richard Biener (rguenther@suse.de) wrote:
One extra issue is to ensure upgradeability of whatever existing scheme is in use to the new scheme. rpm epoch anyone? ;)
That would make poor little kittens cry. But it's not disliked by our policies, so you could do that. "Forever" is such a relative term :-)
Isn't it? But is it understood by Zypper/Libzypp ?
And take this into account from rpm.org:
Solution Number 2: Just Say No!
If you have the option between changing the software's version-numbering scheme, or using epoch numbers in RPM, please consider changing the version-numbering scheme. Chances are, if RPM can't figure it out, most of the people using your software can't, either. But in case you aren't the author of the software you're packaging, and its version numbering scheme is giving RPM fits, the epoch tag can help you out.
it is purely NOT advised to use epochs.. especially not if it's just for cosmetic changes.
100% ack.
And we DO accept the fact that zypper dup might have to downgrade once in a while.
And if you want old stories: please re-read http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2009-01/msg00090.html
Ah ok. I can perfectly live with banning epoch. And actually I don't recall any submission in the last 3 years that wanted to use it. -- Sascha Peilicke SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)