Il 28/03/22 18:14, Fabio Valentini ha scritto: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 6:06 PM Mattia Verga via devel > <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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... > You mean this section here? > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_you_need_to_change_an_old_branch_without_rebuilding_the_others > > I think this section can just be dropped now. System upgrades have > operated in "distro-sync" mode for a while, so "Release" going down > just because it's counted differently is not a problem at all. > What remains a problem is stuff like missing forward-ports of bug- or > security fixes, but I didn't yet have time to go through the entire > list *including those where only Release goes down* to weed out false > positives there, too. > > I also explicitly didn't say that rpmautospec increasing Release > faster on stable branches than in rawhide is a problem. > It's one of the reasons why I initially ignored the "Release" field > for generating the list of package downgrades. > > Fabio Yep, but I don't think it should be dropped entirely. I'm not mother tongue, but I think that section should say something like: "EV should always go up between releases, R can be lower in higher Fedora releases if a minor fix/patch or specfile change was applied in stable branches". 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
