On Jul 4, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Alexey Tourbin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 09:48:19PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
+ if (!N1) headerNEVRA(h1, &N1, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
+ if (!N2) headerNEVRA(h2, &N2, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING,
+ _("file %s is packaged into both %s and %s\n"),
+ fn1, N1, N2);
This paradigm of displaying N-V-R.A (or whatever is deemed
informative)
is an obviously (duh!) widely repeated paradigm throughout rpm.
As for me, I think that displaying N-V-R.A is (sometimes) nothing more
than displaying redundant information. Here is why. Suppose that we
store rpmbuild build logs in some SCM system (well, we do), to study
e.g. new compiler warnings or something. And then, simply changing
the
release is going to introduce quite a few changes in the build log,
and
hence this will yield new diff hunks. Now guess what. When studying
build logs, the last thing we need is those funky new diff hunks.
I don't disagree.
However, note that rpm now supports identically named packages
w different versions in the same build. Consider the error msg ...
And before multilib, noone really cared whether arch was displayed.
And before disttag & repotag & other forms of branding carried in
release,
noone really cared about release.
Luckily, the mysterious epoch is still mysterious.
So there is no one answer.
What exists instead is RPMTAG_NVRA, a configurable means
to access metadata in headers for package identification.
73 de Jeff
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
