On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 16:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tuesday 26 June 2007 10:22:33 Brandon Holbrook wrote:
> >> Couldn't we tag all packages built *from this point on* with f8? New
> >> builds have to bump the EVR anyway, so 2.f8 is still greater than
> >> 1.fc7. The whole "f8 is rpm-less than fc7" argument is only valid if
> >> you assume no other changes to a package's EVR when being rebuilt, but
> >> AFAIK there's never been a package rebuilt in fedoraland where the
> >> disttag was the only thing that was bumped. Granted, that means there
> >> would be a mix of 'fc' and 'f' packages, but that's no more tacky than
> >> our current fc6+fc7 mix.
> >
> > Many cases the same version-release were built on multiple branches.
> > frobitz-1.2 comes out and we want to release it across all of Fedora.
> > Therefor we can have frobitz-1.2-1%{dist} on each branch and it will
> > automagically calculate to
> >
> > frobitz-1.2-1.fc6
> > frobitz-1.2-1.fc7
> > frobitz-1.2-1.fc8
> >
> > Now, if we used your suggestion and made it just f8, suddenly the
> > frobitz-1.2-1.f8 version is /lower/ than the frobitz-1.2-1.fc7 version.
> > Broken upgrade path.
> >
> >
>
> I'm sure I'm saying something stupid, but isn't an upgrade path like that
> 1) "unlikely" to happen while packages get updated every now and then,
> and thus will have a complete upgrade path at some point, while
> 1.2-1.fc7 is installed on a machine that gets update 1.2-2.f8
If I update the fc7 branch at the same time as the f8 branch I have this
transition:
yesterday | today
foo-1.2-1.fc7 | foo-1.2-2.fc7
foo-1.2-1.fc8 | foo-1.2-2.f8
In order to fix that we'd need to change the disttag on all Fedora
branches to f# at the same time. So we'd have 1.f7, 1.f6, etc.
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
