On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 01:02:50PM -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 09:02 +0200, Roman Rakus wrote: > > There is a bug (#496780) requesting to use patchlevel of bash as part of > > RPM version. So today bash-4.0-6.fc11.i586 would be > > bash-4.0.16-6.fc11.i586. What do you think about it? Could it break > > anything? > > RR > > General rule of thumb is follow what's in the tarball filename if > possible. And the patchlevel isn't in it. The release process model of bash is "lazy", they only release a full tarball if the diffs are large enough (or the accumulated sum of them). > But putting the patchlevel in somewhere isn't a bad idea. I'd go with > something like this: > > bash-4.0-1.pl16 > bash-4.0-2.pl17 > bash-4.0-3.pl18 So what would you do when upstream does consider releasing bash-4.0.25.tar.gz, then again just uses patchlevels for say up to bash-4.0.33.tar.gz, then goes bash-4.2.tar.gz and the story begins anew? Technically following the guidelines to the letter we would get bash-4.0-3.pl18 ... bash-4.0-4.pl24 bash-4.0.25-1 bash-4.0-1.pl26 (epoch bump!) ... bash-4.0-6.pl32 bash-4.0.33-1 bash-4.0-1.pl34 (again epoch bump!) Guidelines and laws can be interpreted in many ways, but even in court the intention of the law is important - the post-release versioning for *NON-NUMERIC* patchlevels, which BTW is here not the case, bash upstream never adds a "p" or any other letter) serves for keeping sane upgrade paths w/o introducing new epochs and if we were to follow it to the letter we would indeed achive the opposite. The official patches by upstream do intenionally increase the version of the source and bash --version reflects that. So upstream's intention is that this source conglomeration is bash-4.0.17, not bash-4.0 with some patches. I'd say either add the patchlevel to the version like the bugzilla requests it (because that's were it belongs, the stuff-it-as-as-suffix-to-the-release-tag workaround is just a ... workaround), or leave it as it is. Whatever the outcome, for F11's release I wouldn't touch bash anymore. If there is something to fix do it as an update, or for F12. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpVOI1KU5fC6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
