On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 10:20 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > Upstream's specs are completely irrelevant for FE. The only thing that
>
> I think that being able to be in sync with apstream spec is nice, although
> I agree that it shouldn't lead to bad practices. I don't try to sync
> with upstream in that case, but I think that extending the release isn't
> such a case.
Hi Patrice,
I'm afraid Ralf is right here. The details (especially small details)
of upstream specs are basically irrelevant.
> > matters is consistency within Fedora.
>
> It also allows to keep spec file in sync for the different branches.
>
> > All you are doing, is adding unnecessary and avoidable complexity.
>
> Where is the complexity? Extending release tags instead of bumping
> doesn't add complexity. If I remember well, I also do that for
> other packages, when I want to keep the branches in sync as much as possible
> and avoid changelog entries when a build didn't complete due to a trivial
> error on a branch but not on others, and I have to change the release to
> rebuild.
If you go back through the email list archives there was a long
discussion about not relying on the fact that:
fc3 < fc4 < fc5
when rpm and yum (and other tools) do comparisons of the EVR. So, you
are in fact violating our long-debated (way too long-debated, IMHO)
policy.
*Please* just bump the release number like all the other packages.
Ed
ps - Its also good idea not to "violate the principle of
least surprise". ;-)
--
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails: eh3@xxxxxxx ed@xxxxxxx
URLs: http://web.mit.edu/eh3/ http://eh3.com/
phone: 617-253-0098
fax: 617-253-4464
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
