Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:21:13 +0200, Daniel wrote:
I found 375 possibly wrong NVRs in rawhide.
Can you check it an fix it, please?
I'd like to file bugs for those which won't get fixed in couple weeks.
Short explanation of detected errors follows:
Release doesn't contain a %dist tag.
- %dist is missing in Release: in spec
Often on purpose. Not a bug.
Can you be more specific, please? What's exactly the purpose?
Extra characters after %dist tag.
- there should not be any characters after %dist
- the only exception is a workaround for older releases to keep upgrade
path: 2.fc10.1 < 2.fc11
- rawhide definitely shouldn't contain these
Should not or must not?
Policy doesn't explicitly forbid this, but it's recommendation for
"Minor release bumps for old branches".
Since rawhide is the devel branch, I wouldn't expect it there.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Minor_release_bumps_for_old_branches
iniparser-3.0-0.1.b.fc12.src.rpm
- Release format can be wrong. Unknown non-numeric characters in release.
Not a bug. The ".1" in "0.1" here is the portion of %release that
is more significant than the parts following it.
painstakingly, one would bump it with every change of the package,
no matter whether the ".b" changes, too.
Agree, this is obviously a false-positive.
- Pre-release build's release should start with '0.'.
Too late to correct it (for many of the findings). And often they are not
even an error, because with post-release (!) scm snapshots, upstream *and*
packagers typically don't increase %version -- particulary not if the
next official %version is not known yet. So, once the next final
upstream release is made, %version will increase. And only then one
can reset %release to 0 or 1.
Agree.
--
Daniel Mach <dmach@xxxxxxxxxx>
Release Engineering, Red Hat
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
