Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

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

 



V Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 11:37:48AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:11:22PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > RHEL do updates into older minor distribution versions. E.g. you might want to
> > build for RHEL 9.2 and RHEL 9.3. Users staying on 9.2 should update to that
> > build for 9.2, users staying on 9.3 to the build for 9.3 and users uprgading
> > from 9.2 to 9.3 should update to the build for 9.3 regardeless they updated to
> > the 9.2 build before or not.
> 
> OK, so you mean that the approach with '.<minorbump>' at the end of Release
> doesn't work. Yes, that case is not supported very well.
> 
> There is no great solution here, but there are a few options. Which
> one makes the most sense depends a lot on the package. But in particular:
> - just switch to non-autorelease numbering when introducing the
>   minorbump, e.g. just do Release: 15%{?dist}.1 and then .2, etc.
>
That's what people probably do, but it's not ideal because people need not to
forget to do it and it means a larger churn in dist-git than would be otherwise
necessary.

> > > > - I sometimes need a different commit message from an RPM changelog entry.
> > > 
> > > That's not a problem, the %changelog entry is customziable, see
> > > https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/autochangelog.html.
> > >
> > If I understand it correctly
> 
> You understand incorrectly ;) Please see the docs linked above.
> 
I see. A multi-line commit message without ellipsis reproduces only the first
line into the RPM changlog. That would do. Thanks for insisting on the
documentation.

> > With preserving the release numbers. Last time it subsituted the release
> > number with a dummy value. Part of the development is comparing old and new
> > builds and testing an upgrade path. A dummy release number is not sufficient.
> 
> No. I don't know what "last time" means, but it hasn't been like that
> since it was officially introduced in Fedora.

Indeed. I probably mistaken it with building from a source package in mock.

-- Petr

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--
_______________________________________________
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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[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