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

Re: Package EVR problems in Fedora 2008-06-10



On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 16:04 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:24:36PM -0400, buildsys fedoraproject org wrote:
> > ocaml-deriving: 
> >   F8-updates > F9-updates (0:0.1.1a-4.fc8 > 0:0.1.1a-3.fc9)
> > 
> > ocaml-gsl: 
> >   F8-updates > F9-updates (0:0.6.0-4.fc8 > 0:0.6.0-3.fc9)
> > 
> > ocaml-json-static: 
> >   F8-updates > F9-updates (0:0.9.6-4.fc8 > 0:0.9.6-3.fc9)
> [etc etc]
> 
> Is this wrong?
> 
> I'm afraid to say that a lot of packages I have do this.  The reason
> is that I develop and build packages on Rawhide, then backport them to
> F-8.  However when backporting to F-8 I have to bump the release
> number up, typically because I have to add an ExcludeArch: ppc64[*]
> for F-8, but may be because of other packing twiddling too.
> 
> I wasn't aware that there had to be a strict increase in package
> numbering between branches.  (In fact, I wasn't aware that Fedora even
> allowed updating between Fedora releases).

It's very strongly encouraged.  We do provide upgrade paths between
releases (and are even working to make them more robust).  So yes,
please do keep EVRs for older releases lower (in the rpmvercmp sense)
than those for newer releases.

When in doubt:

% sudo yum -y install rpmdevtools
% rpmdev-vercmp 0:0.9.6-4.fc8 0:0.9.6-3.fc9
0:0.9.6-4.fc8 is newer

- ajax

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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