[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Handle disttag (#589)

[Ivan Zakharyaschev]

> I think probably the most sane format would be `name[-[epoch:]version-[release[.disttag]]][.arch]`.
> That extends nicely and overlays cleanly over most Linux distributions' usages of a DistTag.

I think this is bad because this would make it impossible to split `release.disttag.arch` correctly without knowing the version of rpm. (Remember that `.` is allowed in release.)

But this property is already broken because `rpm -qa` used to print `name-version-release`, then changed to `name-version-release.arch`

> ...proposed a format like `name[-[epoch:]version-[release[-disttag]]][.arch]`, but not everybody likes it 'cause its ambiguity. Lets discuss what the format it should be so we can implement it.

That's also bad for splitting `name-version-release-disttag.arch` correctly (for similar reasons): `-` is allowed in name, so finding the release and version is a matter of counting the dashes from the end.

So unfortunately, the existing separators are bad for this purpose, although that would be nice to re-use one of them for the sake of extensibility.

But for their usage to be "extensible", they must have been not allowed in either name or release (or other fields). It's better to forget about `.` and `-`, and introduce something that would allow to split confidently.

I think that being able to put this value in the filename can be desired. And it's better to have the same format, so `/` is bad.

Hmmm

Perhaps, use `:` again? Something like: `name-[epoch:]version-release[:disttag].arch` without changing the trailing `.arch` to be compatible with those consumers who parse this and expect the tail after the last dot to be arch. (They might get the release as `release:disttag` after parsing, but as long as this is invalid as a release for rpm, that's OK, because they would fail if they tried to use this string as a release, and the failure would indicate that they need an upgrade of their code.)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/589#issuecomment-437635342
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20181110/198a955a/attachment-0001.html>