Re: Zero epoch vs no epoch (patch)

On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 11:33 -0700, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> 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?
> >
> > then I'll go ahead and merge the patch.
> 
> Is this acceptable explanation for the option?
> 
> On a side note, createrepo could use converting to OptionParser :) Oh 
> well, a project for another day perhaps.

applied. Thank you.

and yes, converting to OptionParser is probably a good idea.

-sv