On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:31:15 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > [trustedqsl]
> > > tqsllib-devel-2.4-9.fc23.1.i686 requires tqsllib(x86-32) =
> > 0:2.4-9.fc23
> > > tqsllib-devel-2.4-9.fc23.1.x86_64 requires tqsllib(x86-64) =
> > 0:2.4-9.fc23
> >
>
> This is due to the fact that upstream puts both the application and library
> in the same source archive but they have different versions AND that no one
> reads the comments in the spec file which tells you to bump the library
> rev. I was waiting for the rebuilds to stop before fixing, I guess it's
> time.
$ rpmdev-bumpspec -V trustedqsl.spec
trustedqsl.spec
- %{tqslrel}
+ %{tqslrel}.1
trustedqsl.spec
- %{libtqslrel}
+ %{libtqslrel}.1
trustedqsl.spec
- %{libtqslrel}
+ %{libtqslrel}.1
That won't work, of course, if those macros are used elsewhere in the
spec file.
One work-around that would be compatible with rpmdev-bumpspec is to
move a common sub-release value into the %baserelease or %release variable:
%global baserelease 0%{?dist}
%global tqslrel 10.%{baserelease}
%global libtqslrel 10.%{baserelease}
That is because the script assumes that either %baserelease or %release
is used throughout the entire spec file to set the package release values.
It won't touch the Release tags anymore then, but only the first %baserelease
or %release macro definition:
$ rpmdev-bumpspec -V trustedqsl.spec
trustedqsl.spec
-0%{?dist}
+1%{?dist}
$ rpmdev-bumpspec -V trustedqsl.spec
trustedqsl.spec
-1%{?dist}
+2%{?dist}
$ rpmdev-bumpspec -V trustedqsl.spec
trustedqsl.spec
-2%{?dist}
+3%{?dist}
There will be an extra number in your release value then, however. ;-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
