On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 15:57 -0500, Permaine Cheung wrote:
> Suppose we have a packaging issue (e.g. file not placed in a proper
> location) in java-foo-1.0-1jpp, which it's fixed in java-foo-1.0-2jpp,
> without the jpp release info, we won't be able to tell if that affects
> our java-foo package or not. If the jpp version is not kept in the
> package name, then we may have to spend more time on investigating
> problems arised from other packages depending on java-foo-1.0-1jpp. On
> the other hand, if we know our package is 1jpp version behind, we could
> have tried updating java-foo in the first place and solve the problem
> faster.
There's no reason to have the jpp in there for this, though.
Jesse Keating's proposal allows you to do this within the current
guidelines:
%{jppversion+1}.%{?dist}.y
where jppversion = the numeric portion of the jpp tag,
dist is the fedora dist tag
and y is any minor release bumping you have to do because the jpp
package needed to be updated with something else.
You then know that recovering the jpp number from the fedora version is:
6.fc6 => 5jpp
If you don't actually care about interleaving updates between Fedora and
jpackage, you can even have:
5.fc6 => 5jpp
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
