On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:08:15AM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: >> > On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 17:11 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> >> Actually not if done in conjunction with a release bump, such as we do >> >> with a mass rebuild. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > Only if we make a promise to never use the same base n-v-r across the >> > releases until whichever release we did the mass rebuild on is retired. >> > >> > You are correct in that if we did a mass rebuild in dist-f13, we could >> > move to .f##, but consider 3 days later a maintainer wants to push a new >> > upstream release across the branches: >> > >> > foo-1.2-1.fc11 >> > foo-1.2-1.fc12 >> > foo-1.2-1.f13 >> > >> > We're back in the same boat where the "fc" packages will be n-v-r >> > higher. >> > >> >> Is RPM so hard to hack to work this around? >> > There's many things that need to be changed in rpm but IMHO this isn't one > of them. RPM produces predictable versioning. Hacking it up with special > cases will lead nowhere but pain. > Suppose we hack the RPM, such that right before RPM does the EVR check when updating a package, it will take the Release string and does a 's@.fc\([0-9]\)@.f\1@' for both the old and the new package? Can you give me an example where this might lead to a problem? Orcan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
