"ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl writes:
ZJ> This doesn't sound convincing at all.
I was not attempting to be convincing.
ZJ> We *know* that people miss announcements all the time. Dropping ZJ> epochs would introduce yet another case where a "magical" step is ZJ> needed at a specific time.
Personally I don't see it as being excessive. Plus... if you're running rawhide you do already have to deal with this, when it's done accidentally. I believe a proposal to do it in a coordinated fashion actually helps the situation.
ZJ> We need to remember that dropping epochs also impacts any package ZJ> which uses Requires/BuildRequires/Recommends/Conflicts/Obsoletes on ZJ> the package dropping the epoch.
Yes, that was covered in previous discussion.
ZJ> All those will require periodic rebuilds. The problem is that those ZJ> things don't necessarily follow the cadence of Fedora releases.
Yes, all of these are confounded by epochs currently. I believe that after the epochs have been removed, the situation is actually better than it is now.
ZJ> The proposal to drop epochs sounds like a step that is problematic and ZJ> causes extra work now and ongoing for third-party packagers.
Personally I just don't see the problem. I'm not saying that it has nonzero cost, but I don't see it as being major.
ZJ> And the problem that it solves is niche. The cost of the solution ZJ> doesn't seem justified.
I wonder how the existing RPM-based distros which allow epochs to go away between releases handle this. Aren't we the last one that doesn't?
- J<