On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 16:04 +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. > > 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). It's very strongly encouraged. We do provide upgrade paths between releases (and are even working to make them more robust). So yes, please do keep EVRs for older releases lower (in the rpmvercmp sense) than those for newer releases. When in doubt: % sudo yum -y install rpmdevtools % rpmdev-vercmp 0:0.9.6-4.fc8 0:0.9.6-3.fc9 0:0.9.6-4.fc8 is newer - ajax
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
