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

Re: A silly question about our "FC" tag



On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Stu Tomlinson  wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 22:01, Orcan Ogetbil  wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> Which part of "Hacking it up with special cases will lead nowhere but
> pain." confused you?
>

The part where an obvious hack would not cause a confusion confused me.

> It's a hack. It's Fedora-specific, so doesn't belong in RPM (or
> anything else). And RPM will no longer produce predictable versioning.
>

My proposed hack's outcome is quite predictable.

> And you'd probably need to hack it in to yum and numerous other
> package management tools.
>

That's correct.

Josh Boyer wrote:
> Yes.  The part where you said "hack the RPM".  Carrying a Fedora specific hack
> like that in our RPM package for _no_ good reason seems pretty silly.
>

Well, there *is* a reason. Qualifying is good or bad depends on the taste.

I am not a fan of ".fX" and I don't have any good or bad feeling
against ".fcX". I just wanted to propose a painless resolution if many
people find this to be a problem.

Nevertheless no one has answered my original question yet. (It feels
like the "using autotools in the specfile is not good." claim that
nobody could back up.)

Best,
Orcan


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