On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:36:55 +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote: > I tried that, and rpm rejected the new package as an older release, so I > surmised that the old Epoch (2) was superseding the release version. Of course I meant to say "surmised that the old Epoch (1) was superseding" > Are you saying that 0:0.14.2.90-0.fdr.1 is supposed to supersede > 1:0.14.2-2, or should I simply have matched the Epoch with 1? Incidentally, what *are* valid reasons for bumping the Epoch? Keith.
