On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 12:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > No, it isn't. Surely you can avoid the necessity to bump release > for all branches. Upon rereading your original mail, I still don't see how this is avoided. Can you help me understand how the following test cases would work: (Assume that FC-3 and FC-4 are current, FC-5 in devel. Also keep in mind the aforementioned Golden Rule, that packages in FC-3 < FC-4) 1. The Normal Case In the FC-3 repo, you have: foo-1.0-1.noarch.rpm In the FC-4 repo, you have: foo-1.0-2.noarch.rpm You need to errata the FC-3 repo. 2. The CVS Case (disconnected) In the FC-3 repo, you start with: foo-0.0-1.20050315.noarch.com (pre-release cvs checkout) In FC-4, you need a later checkout: foo-0.0-1.20050515.noarch.com The FC-3 package needs a bugfix errata, without new cvs checkout. FC-4 does not. 3. The CVS Case (same source) In the FC-3 repo, you start with: foo-0.0-1.20050515.noarch.com You use the same cvs co for the FC-4 repo: foo-0.0-1.20050515.noarch.com Resolve the conflict in naming between branches, and perform an FC-3 only package errata. (Note that I have avoided dist tag usage on purpose to avoid "complicating" the issue, but if they're useful in your solutions, feel free to reintroduce them here) Thanks in advance, ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
