On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:26:09PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:59:32 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 07:40:51PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:22:15 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:34:02 -0400 (EDT), buildsys wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > limb AT jcomserv.net: > > > > > > ettercap > > > > > > FE5 > FE6 (0:0.7.3-13.3.fc5 > 0:0.7.3-12.fc6) > > > > > > FE5 > FE7 (0:0.7.3-13.3.fc5 > 0:0.7.3-12.fc7) > > > > > > > > > > > > gnubg > > > > > > FE5 > FE7 (0:20061119-8.fc5.2 > 0:20061119-7.fc7) > > > > > > FE6 > FE7 (0:20061119-8.fc6 > 0:20061119-7.fc7) > > > > > > > > > > > > xmoto-edit > > > > > > FE5 > FE6 (0:0.2.4-6.1.fc5 > 0:0.2.4-6.fc6) > > > > > > FE5 > FE7 (0:0.2.4-6.1.fc5 > 0:0.2.4-6.fc7) > > > > > > > > > > > > miker5slow AT grandecom.net: > > > > > > etherape > > > > > > FE5 > FE6 (0:0.9.7-4.1.fc5 > 0:0.9.7-4.fc6) > > > > > > FE5 > FE7 (0:0.9.7-4.1.fc5 > 0:0.9.7-4.fc7) > > > > > > > > > > The issues with "ettercap", "xmoto-edit" and "etherape" are one of the > > > > > infamous problems when adding a %dist tag. > > > > > > > > Ehem. All of the above have the same inequality relation if you drop > > > > the disttag ... > > > > > > Impossible, because then you cannot tag and build the packages in the way > > > they have been built above. Only due to the added %disttag, it was > > > possible to keep the rest of %release equal across multiple branches. > > > > You're setting 13.3 and 12 as well as 4.1 and 4 to be equal. OK, that > > must count as cheating at the very least. ;) > > Haha, almost funny. > > So, you've taken the bait and continued with your very own way of > thinking. What do you want to prove this time? ;) Me, nothing. You're the one doing advanced mathematics no one can catch up with. > That Joe Packager can do the following? > > FE5 > FE7 (0:0.7.3-100 > 0:0.7.3-12) > > Yes, look closely. In a no-dist-tag scheme, packager can break versioning > and upgrade paths in various ways just as when using dist tags. What is > the point? Aiming at creating an endless thread once more? Sorry, you did post something controversial waiting for a reply, what exactly do you expect from the rest of the world, to remain saddened in silence? > The key difference is, that _normally_ without a dist tag the packager is > fully responsible for keeping release of the latest branch higher than for > old branches. So, let me understand, we have a fully manual way to manage upgrade paths, which is as error-prone as the packager's brain can be, or a half-automatic way that solves 90% of the problem. And your conclusion is: If we don't solve 100% of the problem let's drop to 0%. > This will be my last reply in this thread. So say we all. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpWFcDlftBOW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
