On Wed, 12 May 2004 18:09:03 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > It also does not seem to cover conventions on > > > * Replacement packages > > > > Do you mean upgrades of what is included within Fedora Core? > > Yes. Updates for Fedora Core are not fedora.us' area. Except for the very few packages in the "patches" repository. But that one is a dead end. If something in Fedora Core is broken, it should be fixed in Fedora Core, not updated by a 3rd party repo. Replacements, i.e. substitutes for available functionality of packages in Fedora Core should be prepared as Fedora Alternatives. > > 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. To maintain a clean install/update path in one direction (i.e. _to_ your packages), your packages must win EVR comparison. Downgrade back to original Core packages would be a special case (rpm -Uvh --oldpackage). > > > 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. Well, that's just a side-effect of "ralf < 1". > > 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 :) Package naming guidelines are for fedora.us, not for indivual people's packages. > > > 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. How that? repotags don't appear in dependencies.
