On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:04:59 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:24:36PM -0400, buildsys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > ocaml-deriving:
> > F8-updates > F9-updates (0:0.1.1a-4.fc8 > 0:0.1.1a-3.fc9)
> >
> > ocaml-gsl:
> > F8-updates > F9-updates (0:0.6.0-4.fc8 > 0:0.6.0-3.fc9)
> >
> > ocaml-json-static:
> > F8-updates > F9-updates (0:0.9.6-4.fc8 > 0:0.9.6-3.fc9)
> [etc etc]
>
> Is this wrong?
>
> I'm afraid to say that a lot of packages I have do this. The reason
> is that I develop and build packages on Rawhide, then backport them to
> F-8. However when backporting to F-8 I have to bump the release
> number up, typically because I have to add an ExcludeArch: ppc64[*]
> for F-8, but may be because of other packing twiddling too.
That's no reason.
%if 0%{?fedora} > 8
# something
%endif
Effectively, you can create a spec file in "devel" which you can
copy unmodified to older branches.
If, however, you really need to modify'n'bump an older branch only,
increase the "Release" value in the least-significant position at
the very right,
4%{?dist} => 4%{?dist}.1 => %{?dist}.2 => and so on
but if it's just minor modifications, you better use the %fedora
macro as above.
> I wasn't aware that there had to be a strict increase in package
> numbering between branches. (In fact, I wasn't aware that Fedora even
> allowed updating between Fedora releases).
What do you think why does Anaconda support distribution upgrades?
It has been the official upgrade method for many years (as with
old Red Hat Linux), and our users do also Yum/Apt-based dist-upgrades.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
