On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 00:24:02 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote: > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:36:58 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote: > > > > > > Well, it doesn't make much sense to discuss this further or to pound > > > > on obvious examples. Since for inter-repository dependencies, I'm an > > > > advocate of the "determine overlapping contents and move them into a > > > > common base repository" methodology. Alternatively, replicating common > > > > packages with exactly the same NEVR (and preferably, built in the same > > > > environment) would be another solution. > > > > > > Please give me an example where it influences the RPM version comparison > > > in a *relevant* way ? You, Seth and Jeff are spreading this fable and it > > > is the only argument I heard to get rid of it. > > > > > > All the obvious examples are broken, even without repotag or disttag there > > > is no important reason why release 2 from one repo should be upgrade to > > > release 3 of another repo. > > > > Why should release 2 from one repo upgrade release 2 from a different > > repo? > > Exactly, there is no good reason and the repotag does not intervene. > So repotags do not matter. They don't? http://heidelberg.freshrpms.net/rpm.html?id=594 celestia-1.3.2-1.1.fc3.fr.i386.rpm http://dag.wieers.com/packages/celestia/ celestia-1.3.2-1.1.fc3.rf.i386.rpm I started with freshrpms, then added your repository. What did I get? An unnecessary upgrade of a 16 MiB package just because "rf > fr". What did the upgrade add? Nothing. It was built from the same source package, and the changelog is the same. In the extracted spec file in your repo, it reads "Release: 1", but the %{release} querytag returns 1.1.fc3.rf actually. > You see, we already have a working scheme for this. Very clever of you > Michael. You're arguing in favor of us :) > > 0.el2 < 0.rh7 < 0.rh8 < 0.rh9 < 1.el3 < 1.fc1 < 1.fc2 < 1.fc3 < 2.el4 Even more added complexity which must be tied deep into the buildsystem to make sense? Is that uglyness really worth it? Out of interest, what would I do if celestia-1.3.2-1.1.fc1 needed a fix specific to an API bug discovered in a library in FC1? The FC2 rebuild would be celestia-1.3.2-1.1.fc2, and "fc2 > fc1". How would I bump the version of the fc1 erratum to be newer than 1.1.fc1 but older than 1.1.fc2? > There are some pitfalls to this scheme, but [...] Please complete the missing details, i.e. all pitfalls presently known. You pitch on benefits, but keep quiet about pitfalls and deficiences.