On 11. 03. 19 19:25, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"MH" == Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
MH> Is this something that we actually want? E.g. I was quite surprised
MH> by the behavior.
What about it is surprising? You remove the bootstrap bit and without
changing anything else you have a package which sorts newer than the
previous with-bootstrap package. Even though we haven't yet run short
of integers, I can see the utility in this.
I was bit by this in copr when I rebuilt something from Fedora without bumping
and it and it got lower nevr than Fedora official build. Obviously I should have
bumped the release, but I was surprised nevertheless.
MH> When I bootstrap, should I manually bump the release number or let
MH> this magic happen?
Well, obviously you have to bump it once. Whether there's any utility
in saving you from having to bump twice is up for discussion, but
certainly you can.
I'm OK with not bumping the release manually when I build the non-boostrap
build. I just wanted to know wheter it is considered OK.
MH> Also, how do I opt-out from this behavior (other than renaming my
MH> conditional)?
Not outside of redefining %dist. If an opt-out is important, the
conditional could be changed a bit:
Not sure yet, but we certainly have opt outs for a lot of things.
%__bootstrap ~bootstrap
%dist %{?distprefix}.fc31%{?with_bootstrap:%{__bootstrap}}
Then you could %define _bootstrap %nil in your spec to avoid this.
Let's do this?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
