RPM version goes backward in Rawhide
mschwendt at gmail.com
Fri Jul 29 09:01:02 UTC 2011
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. ;)
More information about the devel