[Yum-devel] [yum-commits] yum-builddep.py

[Tim Lauridsen]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:42 PM, James Antill <james at fedoraproject.org>wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 13:14 -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 09:30 +0000, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> > > +                # Note we do not use the epoch to search as the epoch
> for the
> > > +                # source rpm might be different from the binary rpm
> (see
> > > +                # for example mod_ssl)
> > > +                if newpkg.arch != 'src':
> > > +                    name =
> newpkg.returnSimple('sourcerpm').rsplit('-',2)[0]
> > > +                    src = self.pkgSack.searchNevra(name=name, arch =
> 'src',
> > > +                      ver = newpkg.version,
> > > +                      rel = newpkg.release
> > > +                    )
> >
> >  Epoch is not special ... the full e:v-r of the source package can be
> > different from the sub-package. We could extend base_package_name to
> > just be the first value of base_pkgtup?
>
>  Of course looking at doing this, I realize epoch is special because
> it's not in the sourcerpm name *sigh*. So putting it in core yum seems
> like a bad idea (pkgtupee = pkgtup except epoch ?;).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yum-devel mailing list
> Yum-devel at lists.baseurl.org
> http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
>

I just copied this part of thne code from yumdownloader to yum-builddep, so
the comments followed with, so i have not made any bright thoughts about
epoch in sprms :)

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum-devel/attachments/20100107/9c058f30/attachment.htm>