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

Re: Kind request: Set release version to "10"



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:00:51 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:

> > How many packages would that be?
> 
> How many? All the ones from my repo for instance. Same for other
> repos. Some of the repos have intertwining dependencies that would
> also need to be updated.

A few observations: In your repository I don't see a consistent
platform specific release tag scheme. The release tag scheme for RHL
7.3 and RHL 8.0 differs, e.g.

  rpm-4.2-1_15.rh7.3.at.src.rpm  
  mplayer-0.90-0_16rh8.0at.src.rpm

The mplayer package for Shrike doesn't have platform tag at all.
Also note the higher package release:

  mplayer-0.90-18.athlon.rpm

For Fedora Core, it seems to be %{version}-%{release}.rh9.0.94.at
style again.

Other packages don't have any such release tag at all, regardless of
whether they are in RHL already or not. Your repository contains
packages that override core components of RHL and don't allow for a
clean upgrade path, e.g.

  bash-doc-2.05b-23.2.athlon.rpm

Should have been something like

  bash-doc-2.05b-0.23.2.athlon.rpm

so it is guaranteed that Red Hat's bash packages always are newer
than yours.

I'm not familiar with your repository. But it looks like one of your
bigger problems is lack of a consistent and RH/Fedora compatible
package release versioning scheme.

> What about repos not using the rh tag and what about repos not willing
> to give up identification of the rpm as belonging to the rh family?

When either party is "not willing to give up" something, that sets
off the alarm. ;)

> What
> about Fedora Legacy, should part of it be distro-tagged and some not
> (like your example above)?

I haven't seen any work on guidelines for Fedora Legacy yet. But
it would sound reasonable, if 3rd party projects adapted Fedora's
.fdr release tag and vepoch.

> >   2.4.20-20.9 < 2.4.22-1.2061.nptl
> >   2.4.20-20.8 < 2.4.22-1.2061.nptl
> >   2.4.20-20.7 < 2.4.22-1.2061.nptl
> 
> Of course it works when the package version is newer, I am talking of
> keeping the same package built for different releases (e.g. built form
> the same specfile).

2.4.20-20.9 = kernel for Shrike
2.4.20-20.8 = kernel for Psyche
2.4.20-20.7 = kernel for Valhalla

doesn't differ much from

2.4.20-20.rh9 = kernel for Shrike
2.4.20-20.rh8 = kernel for Psyche
2.4.20-20.rh7 = kernel for Valhalla


- -- 
Michael, who doesn't reply to top posts and complete quotes anymore.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/ewyM0iMVcrivHFQRAsOwAJ9v/ES9VrnWofRvT8X+0BONgsLBWgCff1d4
3wFv+gL1hmufu3mXC6FYWX0=
=IrlG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




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