Package EVR problems in Fedora 2008-06-10

[Harald Hoyer]

Adam Jackson wrote:
> 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 at 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
> 

this can be prevented automatically by a cvs-commit check script