Re: Zero epoch vs no epoch (patch)

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, seth vidal wrote:

> On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 22:13 -0700, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you need this? What system isn't using a modern version of rpm?
>>
>> I don't need it, users do. For example RHEL 2.1 has rpm 4.0.x and it's
>> supported until May 2009, and RHL 9 and derivates (which is also affected
>> by this) even if long since unsupported is popular still. Not to mention
>> various non-RH distros, various Suse enterprise products as I understand
>> it etc.
>>
>> There are good reasons people would like to get rid of the old apt
>> metadata format:
>> - it has artificial limitations on directory structure
>> - yet another data format to deal with + tools to run it
>
> Understood. I just had to ask what the goal was for this patch - who it
> was impacting.
>
> Do you think you could add another caveat into --help that mentions why
> one would or would not use -n?

Ok, will do. I'll try to think of a better name for the thing as well as 
'noepoch' isn't very descpritive of what it does.

BTW, I just realized the patch is against repodata DTD as epoch is listed 
as a required attribute of version. It doesn't matter for apt whether it's 
epoch="" or no epoch attr at all but of course we want to follow the DTD. 
Just wondering should the DTD be changed not to require it, because it's 
obviously *not* required by rpm nor deb so it doesn't make much sense to 
require it here either.

> then I'll go ahead and merge the patch.

Ok, thanks.

 	- Panu -