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

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 04:02:11PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 13, 2004, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> wrote:
> 
> >> => An apt or yum based upgrade from FC1->FC2 will fail to pickup this
> >> FC2 package without Axel having any possibility to do anything about it.
> 
> > Axel could package perl-XML-Writer for FC2 for instance, or the person
> > inside Red Hat should have picked a higher release number than already
> > available. Which _is happening_, indeed!
> 
> But a Fedora Core packager can't possibly monitor every single RPM
> repository in existence.  Sure s/he can monitor the major ones, but
> that doesn't cover, for example, private repos that aren't available
> outside.

Certainly, and the hierarchy buildid method should be applied by
private repos for their own sake. OTOH private rpms do not exist in
the common name- and version space, so private repos can do as they
please, for any purpose of theirs.

> The packaging guidelines are useful for such private repos as well,
> such that private packages.  And if it's good for private repos in
> the sense of getting a clear upgrade path, it's good for public
> repos in the this sense as well.

And consequently good for Red Hat's own packages themselves. ;)

No packaging policy will have a real chance if the major part of
packages, the ones from the base don't follow it. Even a suboptimal
policy chosen by RH would be better than the current situation.

More than the 0-prefix which RH as the first tier hierarchy would not
need, the disttag issue should be addressed and finally brought to an
end (the discussion is more than half a year old). So my suggestion
would be for Red Hat to choose the names of the disttags. Anything
that starts with letters and rpm sorts safely RHL and FC release
lines, like

	 rhl7.3  <  rhl8.0   <  rhl9 <  tfp1 <  tfp2 ("the fedora project")
	fp0.7.3  < fp0.8.0   < fp0.9 <   fp1 <   fp2
	  rh7.3  <   rh8.0   <   rh9 < rhfc1 < rhfc2

(and el3 or rhel3 for the RHEL family, the RHEL family should not
rpm-sort with the above, as there are no officially supported upgrade
paths RHEL <-> FC).

Yes, I know some people do not like the connotation "rh" to "fc", but
the above is a technical solution. Let Red Hat just set the disttags
to any working set (both technically and politically) and the repos
will adopt it immediately, I am sure.

So will FC3 has disttags? :)
-- 
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/20040513/6a0d5d79/attachment.sig>