Il 28/03/22 16:19, Fabio Valentini ha scritto: > > Note that this list only includes *Version* downgrades. > > There's a few dozen more packages that are downgraded because of lower > *Release* values, but I didn't yet have time to go through all those > (some are probably caused by additional rpmautospec Release increments > in older stable branches). > In a previous thread on this list I asked about how to handle minorbumps in older branches and it was replied that it is now fine to have lower Release values in stable branches than in Rawhide. I therefore asked if Packaging Guidelines were to be corrected, but I got no reply. IMO, the situation is we have a (official) tool (rpmautospec) that in some cases doesn't comply with FPG, so either the tool should be adapted or the FPG should be corrected. And I hope rpmautospec will not be abandoned to its fate after many packagers have adopted it in their specfiles, like the url macros. AFAIK all the rpmautospec work seems to be just on one user shoulders... Mattia _______________________________________________ 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
