repository- & disttag order

[Enrico Scholz]

Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de (Axel Thimm) writes:

>> reptag at the end causes ambiguities. You can not say if '1.1.1.foo'
>> means versions 1.1 for FC1, or if it means version 1 for FC1.1.
>
> That's why it was argumented (among others) that the disttag needs to
> start with letters like
>
>       -1.1.rhfc1.es
>       -1.rhfc1.1.es

Seems that this needs an extra discussion. But for my taste, 'rhfc' is
bit too long and shorter alternatives will destroy the updatepath.


> No ambiguity possible.

With 'V.R.D' naming scheme (e.g. '-1.es.1.1') this would be no issue
neither...


> Larger release numbers win over newer distributions.

Same with V.R.D...


>> repotag before disttag is the only way which makes sense; see
>
> This breaks the use of disttags for ensuring distribution upgrade
> paths.

1.foo.1 < 1.foo.1.1 is still the correct update-path.


> Pulling the repotag in front of the disttag obsoletes its use as an
> order parameter, which is a bad thing.

Why? repotag is for information only. Using it as an ordering parameter
would not be wise. %release can be compared within the same repository
only, but not between repositories.

E.g. if to take '10.foo.rh9' or '1.bar.rh9' can not be determined by
%release; it can mean that foo's packager is a bloody beginner who
needed ten tries to make it built, and that '1.bar.rh9' was written by a
packaging god who succeeded at the first try.




Enrico