https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823217
Guys, like I said previously, there's only 2 ways to get out of this
with RPM and YUM/Zypp (Red Hat/Clones and *SUSE):
1) Insert an Epoch on the rpm spec template:
(...)
Name: ....
Epoch: 2000
Version:
Release: ....
(...)
2) Rename the packages, ex:
- aao-base
- aao-ure
- aao-writer
I suggest aao, because that's the same name used on the source,
so it would get somehow uniform around.
Either way this isn't an issue anymore for me, as from this point on I
am forced to rebuild AAO; since there are no real problems with this
option, thats my path, since it allows me not to depend on upstream
neither on vendor tyranical approach.
NM
2012/5/20 Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dennis;
>>
>> --- Sab 19/5/12, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> ha scritto:
>> ...
>> > One enduring solution would be to
>> > break with the past and not use the same file names for the
>> > binary bits, the same registry keys, etc., any longer.
>>
>> A better solution is to move to FreeBSD or PC-BSD :).
>>
>
> I had a feeling this was coming! :)
>
>
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
> -- Mark Twain
--
Nelson Marques
// I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of
bread in the middle...
