Le ven 26/09/2003 � 12:32, Austin a �crit : > On 09/26/2003 09:38:37 AM, G�tz Waschk wrote: > > It would be nice if packages would include an implicit epoch tag, so a > > package build on 9.2 will always be newer than one for 9.1 with the > > same version and release tags. > > Hmmm, this is a neat idea. At present, any mdk rpm you grab off the net, you > have no idea what mandrake release it is built for. > > Would that work, having epoch: 9.2 in every package? We use epoch so rarely > that it might be okay, and we could use 9.2.1 if we REALLY needed a new epoch, > right? > > Of course this would require a total rebuild of the distro, edited by hand... > no small task. Maybe this could be done at the same time that we switch to a > full-distro rebuild robot that would force everyone to fix their buildrequires > (me especially). > > Austin
BTW, why not putting what is not working correctly on a wiki page : it seems to me that this versioning problem is just a part of the iceberg, so like this everyone can complain, and a better solution can come from having a better view of common/concurrent problems for urpmi. For example in the specific case cited above, it shows the limiting numbering philosophy OR may be one rule could be applied : when two packages have the same name, only the main one should be used. This leads to the second question : why is this happening, should all contrib packages named as it (ctb instead of mdk for example, like plf ...) or another info in the package itself. Or : since the package can be buitl with version 2 and 3, any indication of this ... Just some thoughts ... Stef --
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
