Re: Package downgrades on upgrade from F35 to F36 + categorized list

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

 



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




[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