On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 17:17 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:41:17 -0500, Ed Hill wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Now this is interesting unless I misunderstand this comment. ;) Surely the
> majority of packagers rely on %{?dist} in exactly the way you describe
> above. One spec, a unique %{release} value and
>
> .fc3 < .fc4 < .fc5
>
> as the dist tag.
This works flawlessly if specs for all fedora release are identical,
i.e. if the same spec file is "being rebuilt for another fedora
release".
This becomes unhandy (IMO non applicable), if specs for different
releases diverge significantly.
Then I prefer to think of spec file development in terms of trees,
similar to a biological tree:
- "devel" is the "main sprout"
- "older fedora releases" are "branches".
If you consider this, and how packages in Fedora typically evolve over
time, you'll see that
1. "devel" typically "gallops away", .1%{?dist} ... .4%{?dist}
2. At a certain point in time a FCN branch is being created.
->.4%{?dist}
3. "devel" continues to "gallop away",
- devel -> .5%{?dist}
- FCN remains compatible -> .5%{?dist}
4. a major change is being introduced to devel:
- devel -> .6%{?dist} ... .8%{?dist}
- FCN stays at .5%{?dist}
Now a bug is found in FCN ... How to choose the release tag?
.6%{?dist} already is occupied by the version in "devel"
One possible solution => .5%{?dist}.1
Or put it differently: Logically, .5%{?dist}.1 is a decendent/fork
of .5%{?dist}, and not of the version on "devel" (CVS term: HEAD).
=> I don't see, why there ever should be any need to use
"Release: [0-9]+%{?dist}.*"
on HEAD (aka devel).
Ralf
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
