On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 16:10, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:44:53 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > All I read on the "old Fedora Project" home page > > (http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines) is: > > ... > > C-4. Dist tag > > ... > > 0.fdr.%{X}.%{disttag} > > ... > > > > AFAIS, this doesn't match with what Fedora.US currently ships: > > It does. Sorry, apparently I misread it. > > It also does not seem to cover conventions on > > * Replacement packages > > Do you mean upgrades of what is included within Fedora Core? Yes. > Obviously, %release must be higher than the current %release of > the package in Fedora Core, Not necessarily - E.g. I might want to apply patches or configure a package with different options etc. > > * 3rd party add-on packages > > both wrt. FedoraCore/RedHat and FedoraCore/RedHat+Fedora.US. > > > > In my understanding, for replacement packages the "leading 0" must match > > the FC/RH version the package is supposed to replace, Yes. > > while third party > > packages are supposed to use a custom %{disttag}, while leaving the rest > > of the Fedora.US release-tag intact. Yes. > That part I didn't understand. What is a "replacement package"? Cf. above. I meant replacing a FC/RH or Fedora.US package with a 3rd party or local package. > > Let's try to apply the GuideLines to an example: > > A package of mine requires perl-XML-LibXML-Common. > > > > Neither Fedora Core 1 nor Fedora.US ship perl-XML-LibXML-Common, but > > Fedora Core 2 has it. There is a package proposal pending for months in > > Fedora.US's QA to add perl-XML-LibXML-Common to Fedora.US/FC1, but ATM > > it is not available for FC1. > Choose a %release lower than the current package in the queue and lower > than the package in FC2: That's not necessary: # rpmver 0:0.13-0.fdr.5.ralf.1.1 0:0.13-5 0:0.13-5 is newer => FC1->FC2 upgrade will work. # rpmver 0:0.13-0.fdr.5.ralf.1.1 0:0.13-0.fdr.5.1 0:0.13-0.fdr.5.1 is newer => An upgrade to a Fedora.US package will work. > perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0.13-0.fdr.4.ralf.1.1.rpm > > Or choose the lowest %epoch:%version-%release possible. If you have doubts > that 0.13-0 is enough, as a last resort you could even decrease %version > to 0 and move the actual software version into the %release tag, e.g. > perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0-0.13.1.ralf This would contradict to the PackageGuideLines :) > > * FC2 ships perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0.13-5.i386.rpm > > * Thereofore I'd expect a potential FC1-Extras/Legacy package to be > > named perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0.13-0.fdr.5.1.i386.rpm. > > > > Now, which release-tag to use for my "temporary legacy package"? > > Dist-tags are evil. Attempts at defining inter-repository release-tags > fail miserably as soon as multiple versions/releases of a package > exist and contain different %release tags. This is only one side of the medal. On the other side dist-tags provide a clean separation for 3rd party supplied packages and prevents users from mixing up incompatible packages. > Even if you put "ralf" > at the very right, it would be included in EVR comparison and win > over tags like "fdr" or "lvn", but also over numerical ones. > > > As it seems to me, the only functional solution for my purposes is: > > perl-XML-LibXML-Commmon-0.13-0.fdr.5.<char><*>.1.rpm > > > > For example: > > perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0.13.0-0.fdr.5.ralf.1.1.rpm > > Yes, just with 4, not 5. Cf. above. Ralf
