On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:56:08 +0900, Mamoru wrote: > Roy Rankin wrote, at 02/25/2009 05:22 PM +9:00: > > The mass build of one of my packages denemo returned a state of failed. > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1156407 > > In fact all builds were successful, but the font sub-package seems to > > have failed registration in some database. The message is as follows: > > > > pg.DatabaseError: error 'ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique > > constraint "rpminfo_unique_nvra" > > ' in 'INSERT INTO rpminfo (id,name,version,release,epoch, > > build_id,arch,buildtime,buildroot_id, > > external_repo_id, > > size,payloadhash) > > VALUES (1029749,'denemo-music-fonts','4.10','1.fc11',NULL, > > 85033,'ppc',1235475226,360846, > > 0, > > 30525,'27dfe803f57d46e4487375d3a0c68bf6') > > ' > > > > My understanding is that the main reasons for the new requirement that > > fonts be in a separate package were better license visibility, better > > sharing of fonts, and to save the user from downloading stable fonts > > just because the code changes. And in my case, as the font is in the > > source tar ball a sub-package is indicated. > > > > I gave the font sub-package its own version so code changes would not > > require installing a new font package, and this "protects" the version > > number from rpmdev-bumpspec. However, It looks like doing this is not > > consistent with the Fedora build system. > > > > Is there a way to achieve what I want that will work? > > I think this should not be done. > My recognition is that all binary packages rebuilt from one srpm > must have the same EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) except for perl, > texlive, and so on. Well, that would be a bit too limiting. EV may be different for subpackages, but R must be bumped with every new build of the src.rpm -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
