On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 02:29:23 +0300, KL (Kalev) wrote:
Bumping epoch in rpm would have made it harder for all other packages
to
depend on a particular rpm version. Instead of having e.g.
Requires: rpm >= 4.9.1, they would now also have to remember the put the
correct epoch in there.
Worth noting is that the rpm* packages currently are still without Epoch,
and the second release of 4.9.1 has also been untagged a few days later.
That would have resulted in a second Epoch bump then.
I think it's reasonable to have a broken package pulled from
rawhide for
a little while, if it's going to be properly fixed up in a few days.
Yes, we should try to avoid such things, but having a hard rule here
would be counter-productive.
Especially if the breakage didn't cause loss of data or severe damage
on users' machines. Just rpm-build was affected, wasn't it?
Also, we have a much worse case of versions going backwards. After
each
Alpha release, lots of people are going to install Branched pre-releases
and they automatically get enabled updates-testing repos. And in that
updates-testing repo, packages are often pulled out and versions go
backwards. Why is such practice allowed in Branched, but not in rawhide?
Good question, IMO. ;)