On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 09:37:25AM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Igor Gnatenko <
> ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:29 AM Michael Adam <madam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> >> zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:38:44PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> >>> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> >>> > zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> >>> > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Peter Robinson <
> >>> pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:07 PM Michael Adam <madam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Hi all,
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Tinyproxy just released a new version 1.10 which is has been
> >>> overdue
> >>> > > > > > and containes 2 CVE fixes apart from several enhancements.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > I created builds for rawhide already.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > I was wondering if it is still possible to get tinyproxy to
> >>> this
> >>> > > > > important
> >>> > > > > > update in f29, since no other packages depend on it, afaict.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > If so, what do I do? Just update the scm branch and bring it in
> >>> > > through
> >>> > > > > Bodhi?
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Thanks for the swift response!
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > (And apologies for any cluelessness about newer aspects of the
> >>> fedora
> >>> > > > process - it's been a while since i did these things, and it
> >>> worked a
> >>> > > little
> >>> > > > differently then...)
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > Sounds like a reasonable course of action. Is it backward
> >>> compatible
> >>> > > > > in terms of any interface people might use?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > There are a few config file additions.
> >>> > > > The location of the binary has changed from /usr/sbin
> >>> > > > to /usr/bin . Otherwise no Interfaces i'm aware of.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > You should create a compat symlink from the old location to the new
> >>> > > location, at least in the stable releases, in case somebody calls the
> >>> > > binary by path.
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> > Good point.
> >>> >
> >>> > - Is there an established way to create such a "compat symlink"?
> >>>
> >>> ln -s ../bin/NAME %{buildroot}/usr/sbin/NAME
> >>>
> >>> would be the standard way.
> >>>
> >>> > - What do you mean by "stable releases"?
> >>> > Does F29 (which is not released yet) qualify as that?
> >>> I meant F28 and F27, but since this costs so little, I'd do the same
> >>> for F29 too.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hmm, ok. I guess it is not a problem at this point
> >> if f29 thereby goes one build ahead of master.
> >> If needed later, we can still bump master's release number..
> >>
> >
> > This is wrong, rawhide version should be always newer. You can either bump
> > release in rawhide and do no changes there or bump release *after*
> > %{?dist} in f29/f28.
> >
>
> Ok...
>
> Can I still downgrade the release from 2.f29 to 1.f29.1 (or so) in f29
> (since it's not official yet, only put up in testing for f29)?...
You probably could, but I think it's better to just rebuild it in rawhide
with the same version. (It's less work for you and less chances of confusion
for others.)
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
