[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: On disttags (was: Choosing rpm-release for fc1 and fdr add-on rpms)



On Tue, 18 May 2004, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> On May 18, 2004, Rex Dieter <rdieter math unl edu> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, exactly.  In the case where that is not true, dist_tags are 
> > harmless, so this shouldn't be used as an argument against using them.
>  
> Not *totally* harmless.
> 
> Wasn't there a problem in the way old versions of rpm compared say 
> -1.foo with -1.1.foo?

I believe rpm-4.0 had a problem like what you describe.  However, since 
redhat no longer supports anything with rpm-4.0, this should also be a 
non-issue, right?  (-:

Besides, the case you mention case easily be avoided.  *Always* use the 
same # of significant digits/dots in front of dist tag and/or simply 
increment the release, so you end up with either
-1.0.foo -> -1.1.foo
or
-1.foo -> -2.foo

> If you use disttags, and you have to patch a package such that the
> R number goes in between two R numbers that are already out, and you
> can't just append the build number at the end for the reasons Axel
> already exposed, and you can't add `.number' before the disttag, what
> do you do?

No problem.  (-:  Migrating *to* disttags actually helps in this 
case, and you avoid the problem you mentioned above because there is no 
existing dist_tag.  Example, foo-1-3 and foo-1-5 are released now.  
Release patched version as:
foo-1-3.0.%{dist_tag}

-- Rex



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]