On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Stu Tomlinson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 22:01, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >>> 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? > > Which part of "Hacking it up with special cases will lead nowhere but > pain." confused you? > The part where an obvious hack would not cause a confusion confused me. > It's a hack. It's Fedora-specific, so doesn't belong in RPM (or > anything else). And RPM will no longer produce predictable versioning. > My proposed hack's outcome is quite predictable. > And you'd probably need to hack it in to yum and numerous other > package management tools. > That's correct. Josh Boyer wrote: > Yes. The part where you said "hack the RPM". Carrying a Fedora specific hack > like that in our RPM package for _no_ good reason seems pretty silly. > Well, there *is* a reason. Qualifying is good or bad depends on the taste. I am not a fan of ".fX" and I don't have any good or bad feeling against ".fcX". I just wanted to propose a painless resolution if many people find this to be a problem. Nevertheless no one has answered my original question yet. (It feels like the "using autotools in the specfile is not good." claim that nobody could back up.) Best, Orcan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
