Kind request: Set release version to "10"

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 08:31:56PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Oct  6, 2003, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, most certainly, but you do see the chicken-and-egg problem?
> > Better to not depend on the order of the packages installed.
> 
> Err...  Isn't this what rpm dependencies are for?
> 
> Sure enough, you may have to run rpm -F more than once, to get the rpm
> updated in the first round, and everything else later, but I can't see
> other problems.  Do you?

If rpm itself is broken and needs to be upgraded before performing any
further steps, you loose. Unless of course you make all packages
depend on rpm >= 4.1.1, but even then a buggy rpm would sort the
dependencies according to its buggy ordering algorithm and install the
wrong bits.

To summarize the problem: Some suggestions for versioning concurrent
packages for different RH/FC releases were to use the recent
letters-are-older-than-numbers idiom from rpm, e.g.

	foo-1.2.3-4_rh9 < foo-1.2.3-4_1
			or
	foo-1.2.3-4_rh9 < foo-1.2.3-4_0fdr1

which is broken for rpm up to the one shipped with RH8.0.

I think the best suggestion was to set

	"Fedora Core 0.<value>" := "Red Hat Linux <value>",

so that the resulting disttags compare letters to letters and numbers
to numbers (so the rpm non-symmetry bug is not triggered), and the
disttags sort still in chronological order, e.g.

	 foo-1.2.3-4_fdr0.9 < foo-1.2.3-4_fdr1

Unfortunately nobody from RH commented on this. Bill?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- 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/20031007/987e2216/attachment.sig>