V Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 11:37:48AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> 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.
>
> Looking at the docs again, the docs are not great, and we should
> support this case better. This certainly needs looking into.
>
Now I recalled yet another downstream issue: Importing without a git history
will reset release numbers. That hashes RPM-dependencies which refer to
a specific release (like "Conflicts: foo < 1-20" after a package split). One
should of course carefully check them on import, but forking whole
distribution like that into a new downstream distribution warrants there will
remain gems like this.
I don't say it's Fedora's problem. I only try to show why some people are not
keen to adopt rpmautospec.
-- 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
