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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: [Bug 192912] Review Request: paps



On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 08:55 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 15:39 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > > The guidelines also mention that use of %{?dist} is optional and not
> > > necessary in _any_ package.
> > One of the unclearnesses I don't find helpful.
> > 
> > At the moment, we have various styles of release tags, which all are
> > incompatible and without any guarantee of a clear upgrade path ...
> 
> In Core? Yes.

Some random examples:
..
ant-antlr-1.6.5-1jpp_9fc.i386.rpm
..
dmraid-devel-1.0.0.rc11-FC6.i386.rpm

>  In Extras? No.
Yes. There exist packagers who (In FE devel)
* don't use %{?dist} at all
* some use N%{?dist} and increment N with each iteration.
* some use N%{?dist}.M and increment M with each build-iteration 

Now consider moving such a package from FE to FC (and from mock to
brew).

> We obviously care, or we wouldn't be having these discussions, we'd be
> telling you to shut up and do what Red Hat says. Count the number of
> non-RH names on the Fedora packaging committee.
Well, on one hand you told "Same packaging conventions in FC as in FE",
the other hand you are telling "%{dist} won't ever be in brew".

=> project has failed even before it started?

> There are lots of areas where core will have to improve to meet the
> guidelines, and none of them will happen over night.

Well, I'd put NEVR conventions on a top priority item on the agenda.

Ralf



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