On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:34:52PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > 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. ;) Yes, Your Higness. I shall keep His remark firmly noted. ;) > > The above makes no real sense whatsoever, > > Why? Because the minor integers seem to be assigned quite randomly and even the last nevr is the same as the previous on in the second group. So you have at least a typo and the number still make no sense. > > you have effectively reverted the order of buildids and disttags. > > Elaborate. You use "-1.", "-2.", "-3." as disttags. But not I should elaborate on your choice of manual integer fiddling, you should! > > 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.: So you are indeed moving the disttag as an integer to the front and you don't even realize it. > 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. But manual and error-prone. All because you just don't like disttags? Come on give us a break. Or a plonk. > > > 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. I can see that, but what on earth does the ISO have to do in this discussion and what does the version bump do here? Can you explain your sidetracking or not? And please don't threaten with plonks, somehow your killfile seems to be periodically wiped out. Too often, if you ask me. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpC3HN5FLROu.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
