0.5.15lorg3.1 loses epochs on rh7.3/rh8.0/rh9 (promoteepoch?)

[Panu Matilainen]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> We've tried every possible combination already (see the variants and the 
> failures in the thread above): it's simply not possible to support systems 
> requiring promoteepoch without untampered dependency information. Sorry 
> folks, end of story.

Oh and FYI, no amount of argumentation is going to change my mind over the 
above statement. Somebody want to prove me wrong, send patches.

 	- Panu -