rawhide report: 20070108 changes

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:02:06PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>  > There are guidelines for packaging. They contain a standard for naming
>  > pre-release packages. The kernel package clearly is violating it as the
>  > version of the kernel is in fact 2.6.20-rc4, but the %version is 2.6.19.
>  > Can we agree so far?

FWIW I'm also on the same line as Thorsten on using upstream
versioning, e.g. having 2.6.20rcN carry a %version of 2.6.20.

> I don't consider rc's as released versions. The package version number
> should state the latest released version that package is based on.
> If we were to go down this route, we'd have to contend with the
> other upstream naming conventions too.
> look at the combinations we have :- 2.6.19, 2.6.19-git1, 2.6.19-rc1, 2.6.19.1,
> 2.6.19-rc1-git1, 2.6.19.1-rc1

That's true of miriads of other software projects, too, and that's why
there are mechanisms in the guidelines for properly dealing with that.

> If rpmvercmp gets all of those transitions correct, I'll be surprised.

See the packaging guidelines.

> We've got much bigger fish to fry, and this afaics can only introduce problems.

Deviating from upstream's uname is creating huge problems, finxing
that will make many external kernel projects work out of the box with
Fedora's kernel. The current situation is a follows:

o Upstream goes to 2.6.20rc1 introducing most or all API/ABI changes towards
  2.6.19
o all external kernel projects start probing the kernel sources for
  2.6.20 
o Fedora goes 2.6.20rcN, but changes upstream version to 2.6.19
o all external kernel projects boom
o reports to external kernel projects lead to blaming Fedora

In order to not patch each and every kmdl out there I'm changing the
version in the kernel sources back to 2.6.20. Fixed 5 (!) kmdls that
way with "one" character edit (it's more complicated than that, but
that's the simplified version).

So for the kernel, please do consider adjusting versioning to standard
Fedora practices. Pretty, pretty please!!!
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070110/91834d33/attachment.sig>