On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 16:31 -0400, James Bowes wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > >> If we keep epoch a string (as it's been in the past), then that's not a > >> problem though, no? > > > > agreed. > > > > > >> The conversion of the other things seems pretty straight forward as I > >> think that their usage is far more constrained > > > > also agreed. > > > > I just wanted to make sure I made mention of the epoch bit, again, if we > > were thinking about it for pre-3.2 > > So to summarize, are you two are thinking that we apply the patch as > emailed, minus anything relating to epoch? > > Meaning that API breaks for anyone who treats build_time as a string > (whoever that might be), but does not break for epoch related code. Also > meaning that epoch is still stored as a string in the db.
That sounds about right to me, yes. Jeremy? -sv _______________________________________________ Yum-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
