On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:40:11 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 02:32 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > foo-1.0-1.fc3.i386.rpm (stable release) > > foo-1.0-2.20050514cvs.fc4.i386.rpm (post-release snapshot) > > These two packages will never compare, unless you're doing a dist > upgrade. But I'll assume you meant .fc3 for both rpms. No, I didn't mean .fc3 for both rpms. > > If the .fc4 cvs snapshot doesn't need an update, you get the same > > problems. Dist tags don't help in that case either. They only help for > > updates applied to multiple distribution versions at once. > > > > Whenever you bump %release only on an older branch, you increase the > > likelihood that you violate the distribution upgrade path. > > Then you have to bump it on both. We have to enforce that n-v-r of the > previous current branch must be less than the current branch, if we want > to be able to do upgrades. This is true with or without disttags. No, it isn't. Surely you can avoid the necessity to bump release for all branches. > > This can also happen if you have use an older cvs snapshot for FC3 > > and a recent one for FC4, > > > > foo-0.0-1.20040903cvs.fc3.i386.rpm > > foo-0.0-1.20050514cvs.fc4.i386.rpm > > Well, no. In this case, the fc4 package is newer according to rpm. No > conflict in each branch, no conflict on dist upgrade. The conflict only > arises when you bump the FC-3 branch release, without bumping the FC-4 > branch. No. Read the rest of that example, the part that starts with "and ...". With your plan I would bump the .fc4 package just for fun? That can't be true. > > and if you need to fix a security bug in the old snapshot and you > > can't upgrade to latest cvs co because build requirements are insufficient, > > you run into %release conflicts again: > > > > * foo-0.0-2.20040903cvs.fc3.i386.rpm > > foo-0.0-1.20050514cvs.fc4.i386.rpm > > Again, this problem is avoided if both branches are incremented > together. Why? My example explains it. If there is no need to update the .fc4 package, why bump it? In this case, it's clearly more convenient to extend the first number in %release from integer to real number. > Lets put the CVS case aside for a minute and try to figure out how to do > this for the "normal" case first. The CVS case--and the general case of a src.rpm which applies a set of patches, regardless of whether from CVS--is an important one. It leads to cases, where you may need to bump release only for one branch, because the other branches don't need an update. To assume that every bug-fix update is released for all distribution branches, is a false assumption. There are competing and conflicting versioning schemes. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
