On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 01:05:31PM +0200, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > We'd like to introduce Build Number/Tag/Id in the rpm metadata. I agree with Vitaly: %rpmautospec+%rpmautorelease seem to cover most of this functionality in a reasonable way. Maybe there are other motivations / use-cases that weren't discussed that couldn't be solved by our existing tools, but so far I don't see that. There were two/three reasons listed: > By this change we would like to: > * Provide a possibility to change build environment and rebuild rpm > packages without changing their content: neither sources nor spec > files. Strictly speaking, rpmautospec covers this already. On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 01:45:39PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 20/06/2022 10:47, Petr Pisar wrote: > > I think Aleksandra wants to (non-scratch) build all pull requestes before > > merging. > > Official non-scratch builds for non-merged pull requests? Looks very > dangerous. Yeah. I think we should think about scratch and non-scratch builds separately. For scratch builds, e.g. in a pull request, it's just fine to do repeated builds with the same NEVR. For non-scratch builds, the fact that you cannot do that is a feature. > * Set a common standard for the RPM-based ecosystem, which can be used > not just within Fedora, but also by Remixes, downstreams, SIGs and > other distributions. So far downstreams and other distros used a different dist tag. I think this is reasonable. And if they're doing other modifications apart from a rebuild, an %autochangelog entry generated from a dist-git commit seems better than a yet-another mechanism to provide information about the rebuild. In particular, a build-counter doesn't see to be good fit for this, since we'd want to distinguish different vendors that do the build, and with a counter we can't do that and in fact risk confusion if multiple downstreams do builds with the same number. > The most visible impact of the proposal would be the filename change: > > Current: dnf-4.9.0-12.fc36.noarch.rpm > Proposed: dnf-4.9.0-12.fc36.34897715.noarch.rpm The history of development of rpm and the ecosystem has shown that modifications that are visibile at the level of the output binary rpm have a long implementation tail for the ecosystem. In particular, if we allow add the build-number information, many many consumers will need to adjust for this, from trivial things like regexps to match '%dist.rpm' in the filename to complicated things that extract and make use of the version field. So if we want to add a new feature here, a much strong justification why what we have already is not enough would need to be provided. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ 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
