On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:40:28PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 04.06.2007 19:20, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:11:14PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> On 04.06.2007 18:56, Axel Thimm wrote: > > [...] > >> /me more and more gets the feeling people don't understand what I'm up > >> to; of I'm really missing something here. > > /me thinks you should just fast forward to F9 and try to submit a > > package with your model to see what's wrong. > > Could you please use the example I gave in reply to Jesse to show me > "what's wrong"? Where is the new package submission that wants to use the same specfile for F8/F9 and devel? Not possible anymore? That's the catch. As said, your proposal is just a disguised way back to not using disttags at all. Why bother having a ".1" then at all? > > /me also thinks you should start testing release ids of "1.1" vs "1" to > > id some more flaws in this. > > What are you up to? "1.1" is of course higher then ".1" I'm not talking disttags, but minor fixes in the buildid as in <releasetag>=<buildid><disttag> choosing a disttag that start with letters was designed that way see the discussion during FC1. E.g. now kernel-1.2.3-4.EL5, small fix or simple rebuild (like your EPEL rebuild) => kernel-1.2.3-4.0.1.EL5 in your model kernel-1.2.3-4.1, => kernel-1.2.3-4.0.1.1 => broken upgrade paths. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpBOZlnQzlzj.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
