Bug 720516

Summary:	perl-Archive-Tar epoch
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Reporter:	Greg Swallow <greg>
Component:	perl	Assignee:	perl-maint-list
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	BaseOS QE - Apps <qe-baseos-apps>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	6.0	CC:	ppisar, psabata
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2011-12-06 15:35:38 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description Greg Swallow 2011-07-11 22:21:04 UTC

Description of problem:
RHEL5's perl-Archive-Tar had an epoch of 1
RHEL6's perl-Archive-Tar has no epoch

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Installed Packages
perl-Archive-Tar.noarch 1:1.39.1-1.el5_5.2 installed
Available Packages
perl-Archive-Tar.i686 1.58-115.el6 base 

I apologize if this by design, or policy, that epochs in 5 are removed in 6, or is this a bug?

Comment 2 RHEL Program Management 2011-07-11 22:38:07 UTC

This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated
in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to
address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to
ask your support representative to propose this request, if
appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat
Enterprise Linux. If you would like it considered as an
exception in the current release, please ask your support
representative.

Comment 3 Petr Pisar 2011-07-12 07:02:07 UTC

Thank you for the report. Upgrade from RHEL-5 to RHEL-6 is not supported. On the other hand this issue could be fixed. Please note RHEL-6 perl-Archive-Tar binary package is output of perl source package (in contrast to RHEL-5), so fixing this issue would require to rebuild perl.

Comment 4 Greg Swallow 2011-07-12 15:49:20 UTC

Your welcome, I just figured that if an epoch was introduced in RHEL-5 to be above 3rd party packagers, that in RHEL-6 the same epoch should still be kept to stay at least on the same level as any 3rd party packagers.  Someone accidentally 'upgrading' to version 1:1.52 or something like that might be a concern.

Comment 6 Petr Pisar 2011-12-06 15:35:38 UTC

I pondered this issue again and I changed my conclusion. Epoch number is ugly hack and it's source of never-ending mistakes (like this one, when new distributions are composed from related projects sharing packages). Because upgrade between RHEL major versions is not supported, third-parties should provide separate repositories for different RHEL major versions. Thus I do not want to get the epoch number back.