On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:15:04 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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. ;)
Keep moving closer to a "plonk" for this list. ;)
> The above makes no real sense whatsoever,
Why?
> you have effectively
> reverted the order of buildids and disttags.
Elaborate.
> 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.
Pardon? What are you talking about?
> 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? ;)
All above or equal to 3 work fine for F8, pick either one, e.g.:
foo-1.2.3-3 (f8)
or: foo-1.2.3-4 (f8)
or: foo-1.2.3-8 (f8)
to continue above list, another fix:
foo-1.2.3-1.5 (fc6)
foo-1.2.3-2.3 (f7)
foo-1.2.3-3.1 (f8)
If you insist on copying the f8 spec to f7 and fc6, you can still do that
with oh so many packages where it works. Adjusting %release is necessary,
but not difficult.
> > 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?
Are you serious? Do you really don't see what role %dist plays in
conjunction with broken dist-upgrade paths? It has been the topic of
many old threads about pros and cons of %dist.
--
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
