rawhide report: 20120728 changes

[Andreas Schneider]

On Saturday 28 July 2012 14:47:28 you wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 12:36:26 +0000
> Fedora Rawhide Report <rawhide at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > ---------------------------
> > * Fri Jul 27 2012 - Andreas Schneider <asn at redhat.com> -
> > 2:4.0.0-132.beta4
> > - Don't define an Epoch in RHEL releases.
> 
> May I ask why?
> 
> This makes it harder to compare versions between Fedora and RHEL. I
> know it is not a 1:1 mapping anyway, but it is useful to see branching
> points etc.
> 
> Differing Epoch will be confusing later down the road, I think. It's
> not like it's in the way?

[reply to the list]

The Epoch in the Fedora samba4 package has been added to be able to correctly 
conflict with samba packages. The samba packages bumped the epoch some time 
ago for a special update path.

The RHEL samba package doesn't have any epoch set, so Epoch is 0. There is no 
reason why the samba4 packages in RHEL should have an Epoch of 2.

Dealing with an Epoch > 0 and Requires, Conflicts, Obsoletes etc. makes your 
live a lot harder.

If RHEL doesn't have any Epoch set, I don't see a reason why it should be set 
to 2 and make our life harder packaging for RHEL.

Better readability of a diff between RHEL and Fedora isn't an argument. Having 
to spend days to get different Epoch numbers in Conflicts: Requires: and 
Obsoletes: correctly and testing them with different installations is an 
argument. It is valueable time I can spent on other things.


Cheers,


	-- andreas

-- 
Andreas Schneider                   GPG-ID: 8B7EB4B8
Red Hat                               asn at redhat.com
Samba Team                             asn at samba.org