On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 21:56 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 18:29:41 -0800, > Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 14:56 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > >> While looking at bug 1044675 I noticed that redhat-release is unversioned > >> in fedora-release and versioned in generic-release. I would expect it > >> to be the same in both of these packages. I think it probably makes the > >> most sense to version it for anything that is still using that, but wanted > >> to check if other people had good reasons for doing it one way or the > >> other. > > > >I've already looked into this. The only reason I didn't fix it already > >is that generic-release's tarball is secret sauce, there's no > >instructions on generating it in the spec file. > > Lovely. OK won't rush into anything on this side then. (I might try to > figure something out and consult with people to see what they think > if I think I figured it out.) > > >The bug I was looking at was > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040607 , where the > >redhat-release provide being versioned caused a problem (whereas in your > >case it was the other way around). > > I think both cases are wrong now. I think yum used to do something > smarter (or perhaps dumber) about grabbing the version. If I switch > over to using system-release I'm going to hit the same problem. The > problem I was seeing seems likely to have been triggered by the same > yum update. So we'll probably want to make the same changes to > system-release that we do to redhat-release. > > >I agree it makes sense for them to match, to provide maximum similarity > >of behaviour, but we shouldn't version fedora-release's as > >{version}-{release} if we make them versioned, it appears! Either both > >unversioned, or both versioned just {version}, I think. > > I assume you mean redhat-release above. fedora-release shouldn't be > in a provides. Sorry, I was implicitly discussing both package's provides: of redhat-release. > I'll also see if I can find some documentation on provides for how it > is supposed to work regarding version and release. Not sure what you mean, but it's kind of situational. There isn't a Single Global Rule on exactly how 'virtual' provides should be versioned, to my knowledge. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
