For the problem of making rpmdev-bumpspec handle subpackages that explicitly specify a Release tag, I've examined the repo metadata for all packages in F20 plus updates-testing plus RPM Fusion free. * Only four packages define subpackages with a Version and Release tag that differs from the base package. * Just almost two dozen packages define subpackages with a Version tag that differs from the base package. Some of these may not be trivial to bump for a human packager either, because of the problem that one must not reset a subpackage %release when the base package %release is reset during a %version upgrade. Some of the packages in this list use lots of macros to build something that enters the Release tag definition for subpackages. Where this is not anything recognized by rpmdev-bumpspec, such as the %baserelease macro or a value derived from base %release, the script will continue to bump Release tags at the very right (= least-significant) location because it doesn't know better. ;-) The special multi-subpackage spec files I've found and tested with are: Different VR: ['Saaghar', 'linux-firmware', 'openssh', 'texlive'] Only different R: [] Only different V: ['antlr3', 'beesu', 'bpg-fonts', 'brltty', 'ding-libs', 'eclipse-linuxtools', 'festival', 'ganglia', 'ghc', 'haskell-platform', 'iaxclient', 'lpg', 'lvm2', 'nhn-nanum-fonts', 'openlmi-scripts', 'perl', 'perl-PBS', 'ruby', 'svxlink', 'texlive', 'thunderbird-lightning', 'trustedqsl', 'xonotic'] -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
