On 17.04.2007 23:09, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 17:01:11 Florian La Roche wrote:
I've suggested before to leave away the dist tag for the
devel branch completely and only add it for updates once a
release is put together.
This would be a change where packages now start depending on the
dist tag to identify certain releases.
Yeah, that would be nice, but....
And I've shown you before where that utterly fails and completely misses the
usefulness of the disttag.
...I tend to agree with Jesse here.
Either you have to fork all your specs between release and devel (which the
disttag is supposed to save you from doing) or you run into broken upgrade
paths were foo-1.3%{?dist} equates to foo-1.3.fc7 for F7 and foo-1.3 for
rawhide (F8) and you wind up with an broken upgrade path.
Well, why don't we just expand the disttag to something else without the
"fc<I>n</I>" in it in the devel branch? A simple ".1" maybe -- that
should make everybody happy afaics:
[thl@thl tmp]$ # this is how we do it right now:
[thl@thl tmp]$ rpmdev-vercmp 0 1.0 5.fc6 0 1.0 5.fc7
0:1.0-5.fc7 is newer
[thl@thl tmp]$ # why not do it like this:
[thl@thl tmp]$ rpmdev-vercmp 0 1.0 5.fc6 0 1.0 5.1
0:1.0-5.1 is newer
Or am I or rpmdev-vercmp missing something here?
/me always gets a bit confused when it comes to letters in %{release}
BTW, sure, the changelog entry and the actual release won't match fully
this way, but that's the same with disttags.
Just my 2 cent.
CU
thl
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
