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

Re: A silly question about our "FC" tag



On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:08:15AM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 17:11 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> >> Actually not if done in conjunction with a release bump, such as we do
>> >> with a mass rebuild.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Only if we make a promise to never use the same base n-v-r across the
>> > releases until whichever release we did the mass rebuild on is retired.
>> >
>> > You are correct in that if we did a mass rebuild in dist-f13, we could
>> > move to .f##, but consider 3 days later a maintainer wants to push a new
>> > upstream release across the branches:
>> >
>> > foo-1.2-1.fc11
>> > foo-1.2-1.fc12
>> > foo-1.2-1.f13
>> >
>> > We're back in the same boat where the "fc" packages will be n-v-r
>> > higher.
>> >
>>
>> Is RPM so hard to hack to work this around?
>>
> There's many things that need to be changed in rpm but IMHO this isn't one
> of them.  RPM produces predictable versioning.  Hacking it up with special
> cases will lead nowhere but pain.
>

Suppose we hack the RPM, such that right before RPM does the EVR check
when updating a package, it will take the Release string and does a
's  fc\([0-9]\)@.f\1@' for both the old and the new package? Can you
give me an example where this might lead to a problem?

Orcan


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