On Friday, 13 June 2008 at 10:15, Harald Hoyer wrote: > Adam Jackson wrote: > >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 > > > > this can be prevented automatically by a cvs-commit check script The harm begins when you do `make tag', so I'd suggest having this check there instead. Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
