* Petr Šabata [03/03/2016 14:44] : > > I'm not sure it would be possible to do it the way you suggest, supporting > both versioning schemes at the same time. The conversion could be largely > automated and all packages could be altered & rebuilt during the next > Perl mass rebuild, for example. With new generators in place. It sounds simpler to have a switch-day where all packages move to the new scheme and makes sense to do this in a side build-root (during a Perl mass rebuild or not). > > I think having a versioning scheme that works the same way as rpm's > > versioning is a good thing and would avoid plenty of hacks and the need for > > some epoch bumps. > > +1 Huge +1 > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:17:45PM +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > As for replacing much of the existing boilerplate with macros, I'm > > personally less keen on that because I think it actually makes specs harder > > to read, at least until I know what each of those macros actually does under > > the hood. A related point is a higher barrier of entry for new members of the SIG. Requiring people to learn specific macros before they can submit packages or contribute to existing spec files is a huge hassle. Emmanuel -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
