On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 14:40:19 +0000 Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 2023-11-18 at 09:35 +0200, Tuomo Soini wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 21:31:37 +0000 > > Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > Is not an negative feedback, is a side note but I realize some > > > time ago that version with next is bigger than version without > > > next [1] therefore we should find a way that the el8 version be > > > greater than the el8.next version. > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > rpmdev-vercmp 1.el8.next 1.el8 > > > > > > 1.el8.next > 1.el8 > > > > > > > I already suggested adding requirement to do a release bump when > > building from epel-next to epel. > > > > https://pagure.io/epel/pull-request/259 > > > > I find it important that new, compatible with new rhel build has > > bigger > > version-release than epel-next build. > > > > I just tested > > rpmdev-vercmp 1.el8.next 1.el8 > 1.el8.next > 1.el8 > > rpmdev-vercmp 1.el8.next 1.el8.1 > 1.el8.next < 1.el8.1 > > > so rpmdev-bumpspec --rightmost is enough > Yes. If that would be required for epel-next build, building for epel later would automatically override .next release, even without any change to release. That is because: rpmdev-vercmp 1.el8.next.1 1.el8.1 1.el8.next.1 < 1.el8.1 -- Tuomo Soini <tis@xxxxxxxxx> Foobar Linux services +358 40 5240030 Foobar Oy <https://foobar.fi/> -- _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
