In data venerdì 1 ottobre 2010 22:51:48, David W. Hodgins ha scritto: > If the release number was no longer part of the rpm name, packages that > were not changed (which I would expect to be the bulk of them), would not > have to be recompiled, or downloaded/installed, every six months. That > would greatly reduce the amount of work for the developers, and the users. OTOH you are not sure that some packages when you upgrade your system are there because they are older or newer.
I was one who wanted the release number into the rpm name when it was a proposal, and i'm yet sure it was (and should be) a good idea. You can avoid to rebuild your packages if you think they are compatible with an incoming release, there's no problem to read old distro version in them, but if they don't work users can complain that they have not been rebuilt... and (often) upgrades and backports don't fail to upgrade same package version from a distro release and the next one. Avoid release number instead, can cause problems when a backport has been installed, for glibc incompatibility for instance. Same name, same package version but built in backport for stable release and in developer for incoming means it won't be upgraded when developer's becomes new official. My 2€ cents -- Angelo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
