[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 May 18, 2004, Rex Dieter <rdieter math unl edu> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 May 2004, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> 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}

How about foo-1-3.fc3 and foo-1-4.fc4

How do I issue an errata for fc3?

3.1.fc3 (or 3.0.fc3?) won't work, because it causes numbers to be
compared with letters.  3.fc3.1 won't work because upgrading to 4.fc4
will go backwards (I'm not sure I buy that, but it's not my argument,
it's Axel's).

-- 
Alexandre Oliva             http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva {redhat com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva {lsd ic unicamp br, gnu.org}



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