Re: Fedora 35 Change: rpmautospec - removing release and changelog fields from spec files (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 9:20 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:07:44AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 02. 03. 21 22:05, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > > The devil is in the details: pre-release, snapinfo, minorbump aren't really
> > > covered by distance being just an integer bumped.
> >
> > I don't see this covered in the current method either. Or was it in the
> > meantime? Anyway:
>
> It is planned and part of the work to be done with this proposal:
> https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/autorel.html#using-autorel

I'm not sure that this is a good idea. Why not just make the %autorel
macro return the "incrementing number" part of Release?
That would work for all the use cases we have in Fedora today, without
the need for implementing it internally in the %autorel macro.

> > - pre-release should go into version (~)
> > - snapinfo should go into version (~ or ^)
> >
> > The only real problem I see here is minorbump. We could have something like:
> > %{autorel -m}. That means, micobump since this was added here. But I guess
> > it is ugly.
> >
> > > I know we considered the "number of commits since the last version bump" when we
> > > looked into this. I honestly do not remember precisely why we didn't go with it.
> >
> > IIRC it was because you considered building several rebuilds with different
> > releases from the same commit a goal (while I'd rather require an empty
> > commit that explains the reason for the rebuild).
>
> Indeed, that approach would not allow rebuilding a commit without adding a new
> (potentially empty) commit.
> One of the idea being that not having to add commits would make it easier to do
> auto-rebuild of dependency chains.

That sounds like an anti-feature to me. Having that information (even
if it's an empty commit with the "rebuilt for libfoo soname change")
is valuable IMO.
Also, where would the changelog entry for subsequent rebuilds for the
same commit come from?

Fabio
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux