On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 01:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:02:25 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>
> > > Yes. There exist packagers who (In FE devel)
> > > * don't use %{?dist} at all
> > > * some use N%{?dist} and increment N with each iteration.
> >
> > These are correct...
> >
> > > * some use N%{?dist}.M and increment M with each build-iteration
> >
> > ...and these are not. More bugs to file!
>
> I disagree. It should be packager's freedom what to do in this
> least-significant position of the release field.
And I disagree, with this.
Conversely: This kind of "freedom" is the cause for a lack of
simplicity, and the cause for the broken upstream path versioning errors
being reported.
With more restrictive conventions, these issues would not exist.
> If this style of bumping release versions were not permitted, we would see
> more unneeded mass-rebuilds of a package for all dists only to keep the
> upgrade path sane when a new build for only an older dist is needed.
Why would that happen?
Make "N%{dist}.M" (w/ N,M ... int > 0) mandatory and drop the
pre/post-release stuff.
I don't see how epoch bumps would ever be needed.
Ralf
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
