[elrepo-devel] Announcement: Updated kmod-atl1e testing release (Version 1.0.0.11)

[Alan Bartlett]

On 11 April 2010 12:33, Phil Perry <phil at elrepo.org> wrote:
> Alan Bartlett wrote:
>> On 10 April 2010 17:08, Alan Bartlett <ajb at elrepo.org> wrote:
>>> On 10 April 2010 17:00, Phil Perry <phil at elrepo.org> wrote:
>>>> Would this be a case that might warrant use of an epoch?
>>> Yes, I thought long and hard about it, but decided against using one.  ;-)
>>
>> My response, above, does not deny any interested parties in attempting
>> to twist my arm / tweak the black cat's tail to prompt me to change my
>> mind . . .
>>
>> If we were to use an epoch, should it be 0 or 1?
>>
>
> It should be 1, I believe.
>
> Epoch: 1

My only recall of seeing an epoch in use is with CentOS and I'm sure
that what I saw was a zero epoch number -- 0:whatever . . .

> IMHO because this package is intended to update/replace a "newer"
> version already in the main repo, either we should increment the epoch
> or rename the package to something else and Obsolete the old package.
>
>
> Also, if I understand the intention correctly - that this new atl1e
> package also replaces atl1c (??) - we should probably also consider
> adding an Obsoletes: so current users of atl1c are automatically
> migrated to the new atl1e driver?
>
> Obsoletes: kmod-atl1c
>
> Or rather that should probably be:
>
> Obsoletes: atl1c-kmod
>
> courtesy of the virtual provides.
>
> Not attempting to twist any arms, just offering for discussion :)

Discussions (of the non-circular kind) that achieve something are
always valuable and welcome. ;-)

So if users of the current atl1e (version 1.0.1.0) and atl1c (version
1.0.0.11) drivers can let me (more correctly us) know that the new
atl1e (version 1.0.0.11) driver successfully supports their NICs
(knowledge of the device "fingerprint", the Device:Vendor ID Pairing
would be most useful), I should use both an epoch and an "Obsoletes:"
line.

Feedback from the user base really would be appreciated. Two names
come to mind: Richard Chapman & Scott Robbins (quoted in alphabetical
order).

Alan.