On Tue, 18 May 2004, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 18, 2004, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Yes, exactly. In the case where that is not true, dist_tags are
> > harmless, so this shouldn't be used as an argument against using them.
>
> Not *totally* harmless.
>
> Wasn't there a problem in the way old versions of rpm compared say
> -1.foo with -1.1.foo?
I believe rpm-4.0 had a problem like what you describe. However, since
redhat no longer supports anything with rpm-4.0, this should also be a
non-issue, right? (-:
Besides, the case you mention case easily be avoided. *Always* use the
same # of significant digits/dots in front of dist tag and/or simply
increment the release, so you end up with either
-1.0.foo -> -1.1.foo
or
-1.foo -> -2.foo
> If you use disttags, and you have to patch a package such that the
> R number goes in between two R numbers that are already out, and you
> can't just append the build number at the end for the reasons Axel
> already exposed, and you can't add `.number' before the disttag, what
> do you do?
No problem. (-: Migrating *to* disttags actually helps in this
case, and you avoid the problem you mentioned above because there is no
existing dist_tag. Example, foo-1-3 and foo-1-5 are released now.
Release patched version as:
foo-1-3.0.%{dist_tag}
-- Rex
