On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:43:46PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > > which is just the same as not having any disttags at all and led to > > > > the pain before the disttag. > > > > > > It's painless. Package is only updated when somebody maintains it. > > > > We hope all packages are maintained. :) > > > > Just introduce a package into FC6 and F7. And then have a security > > update. You start juggling around with reserving build tags like > > > > foo-1.2.3-1 (fc6) > > foo-1.2.3-2 (f7) > > > > fix: > > > > foo-1.2.3-3 (fc6) > > foo-1.2.3-4 (f7) > > or: > > foo-1.2.3-1.1 (fc6) > foo-1.2.3-2.1 (f7) > > foo-1.2.3-1.3 (fc6) > foo-1.2.3-2.2 (f7) > > foo-1.2.3-1.4 (fc6) > foo-1.2.3-2.2 (f7) > > It has worked fine for many package maintainers for many years. Don't talk about yourself in plural and in the 3rd person. ;) The above makes no real sense whatsoever, you have effectively reverted the order of buildids and disttags. BTW if that were your intention (which you would have said so), it would make sense, I would just not agree on doing so: If the disttag is to take precedence above the release it needs to do so above the version, too, e..g it would become a prefix to the epoch. And I left the best for the end: Where's support for F8/devel? foo-1.2.3-3.x? Or did the integers run out now? ;) > And %dist does not help when bumping %version still breaks an ISO-based > dist-upgrade. I can't understand this at all. What does the media of the update have to do with it and why does a bump of %version break anything? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpjn3CSQScFZ.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
