-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/16/2014 02:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 07:39 +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: >> =================================== #fedora-meeting: FESCO >> (2014-01-15) =================================== >> >> >> Meeting started by mmaslano at 18:00:34 UTC. The full logs are >> available at >> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-01-15/fesco.2014-01-15-18.00.log.html >> >> . >> >> >> >> Meeting summary --------------- * init process (mmaslano, >> 18:01:02) >> >> * 1197 Procedure for suggesting/approving different Products >> and/or WGs? (mmaslano, 18:01:58) * ACTION: mattdm will create >> proposal for spins/secondary products (mmaslano, 18:12:00) * >> ACTION: jreznik will help mattdm wiht proposal (invite >> interested people...) (mmaslano, 18:15:44) >> >> * #1218 Before this starts causing us in QA serious headache >> there should be manatory description on copr repos (mmaslano, >> 18:18:55) * AGREED: proposal about adding dist tag didn't pass >> (+4,-5,0) (mmaslano, 18:44:11) * AGREED: interested parties work >> with copr maintainer for vendor tag and description changes out >> of band (+5,-0,0) (mmaslano, 18:52:33) > > So, in the discussion of this, the following was presented as an > obstacle: > > 18:31:13 <notting> Requires: foo > 1.0-1.%{release} 18:31:22 > <notting> 1.0-1.fc20.copr *satisfies* that > > Well, sure. But as mitr noted in passing - and everyone seemed to > ignore - that's a terrible conditional in all sorts of ways: > foo-1.0-1.%(nextrelease) satisfies that conditional too, even > though it's probably identical to foo-1.0.1.%{release} . > > Does anyone have a case where %{release}.copr can cause problems > that can't *also* be caused just by the same build having been done > for multiple %{release}s? > > In the cited case, I'd use: > > Requires: foo >= 1.0-2 > > or something similar. In general, isn't it pretty much universally > accepted that you should try *really hard* to avoid the disttag > being significant to your conditionals because it's just > fundamentally unreliable to use it? > I feel like I tried several times to communicate this exact statement and was pretty much ignored. I'd love to reopen this discussion, since I really do think the %{dist} solution is the easiest and most visible way to solve this problem. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlLZK00ACgkQeiVVYja6o6PwcwCcCGKepX72SVQYiZdtfml2uynR xccAoIwrvW/seZFJ2f5J29li2AP+QN8r =4DB4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
