On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 11:10:31AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 01:01, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On May 12, 2004, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> >Conversely, all seem to be designed "to take over the system". > > > Even though this is our secret obsession, what do you man by that? > > Dunno what he meant, > > I meant external repositories having chosen their release tags in such > way, that they can not be upgraded to original RH or Fedora.US packages. > > For example: Consider a package now being shipped by livna for legal > issues: xxx-0.lvn.1.1.i386.rpm > > Now suppose, the legal situation changes and the package shall be moved > to Fedora.US: xxx-0.fdr.2.i386.rpm > > # rpmver 0.fdr.2.1 0.lvn.1.1 > 0.lvn.1.1 is newer > > => Can't get rid of this lvn rpm by using Fedora.US PackageGuideLine > conforming release tags, once you have installed it. That's why the repotag needs to get moved to the back of the release tag. If it were xxx-0.1.1.lvn.i386.rpm then xxx-0.2.fdr.i386.rpm would have been OK. > The same applies to other 3rd parties. Why? Almost all have the repotag at the end or missing. > Another example: Axel ships perl-XML-Writer-0.4.6-7.rhfc1.at for FC1. > > Now suppose, RH had chosen to ship perl-XML-Writer-0.4.6-1 with FC2 > # rpmver 0.4.6-7.rhfc1.at 0.4.6-1 > 0.4.6-7.rhfc1.at is newer > > => An apt or yum based upgrade from FC1->FC2 will fail to pickup this > FC2 package without Axel having any possibility to do anything about it. Axel could package perl-XML-Writer for FC2 for instance, or the person inside Red Hat should have picked a higher release number than already available. Which _is happening_, indeed! After all this _is_ a community project, and Red Hat and 3rd parties are supposed to work together and not blindly package anymore. :) If you were to detect such an anomaly as above you should report it and either party can fix the issue. Nobody promised you no packaging bugs! :) > I am still missing an official RH or Fedora.US guide line. There is an official Fedora.US guideline, you quoted it in previous mails :) There is no official Red Hat guideline or no commitment to adopting all or parts of Fedora.US guidelines. I believe that the guidelines you are seeking are considered in draft mode. Since the completion of the merger between Red Hat's fedora and fedora.us requires a common guideline, this needs to be addressed before that, so it needs to get dealt with at some time. Ralf, just go ahead and package in any scheme you now feel comfortable with, even if you later believe the scheme you chose was broken, you can still fix it. (Just don't use epoch inflation in any scheme!!! :) Have fun packaging! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpYOmoyg7FaC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
