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

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 16:59 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:42:47 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 01:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:54:09 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Forgot to mention the case I consider to be the most broken version:
> > > > * N.M%{?dist}
> > > > with unclear meaning of M
> > > > 
> > > > E.g. these packages have just been released for FE6:
> > > > dejavu-fonts-2.7.0-0.15.fc6
> > > 
> > > The old pre-release case, where the most-significant part of release is
> > > made 0 and hence makes it possible to ship a final 2.7.0-1.fc6 in the
> > > future without bumping Epoch.
> >
> > IMO, an over-engineered miss-feature in the guidelines.
> > 
> > It prevents 3rd party packagers to supply packages.
> 
> That is certainly not true.
> 
> > Otherwise, they could resort to use: 
> > 2.7.0-0%{?dist}.M
> 
> Why can't they just use the same versioning scheme?

> Why and when would they supply a package, which is in Core or Extras
> already, with an incompatible version than what either is in Core and
> Extras or will be in Core or Extras later
E.g. because 
* legal restrictions prohibits Core or Extras to ship them
* developers use repos to ship upstream snapshots for testing.
* local demands require packages neither FC nor FE ships.
* packages are stuck in FE review.
etc. pp.

> It is extremely inconvienient and tiresome for anyone, who works on
> packaging guidelines, to consider packaging scenarios for packagers who
> don't adhere to the same guidelines.
3rd parties would consider FE's guidelines, if they were simple and
clear.

Face it: So far they are not.

I hereby formally ask YOU (MS) to write them up and give clear
confirmative _directions_ of how FE 3rd party packagers shall chose
NEVRs that are guaranteed not to conflict with FE nor FC.

I clearly doubt you'll be able to do so.

> > > > xscreensaver-5.00-7.1.fc6
> > > 
> > > This is bad. 7.1.fc6 is newer than 7.fc7. In general, '1' > 'f'.
> > 
> > > > Q: Are N and M supposed to be <int>?
> > > 
> > > Yes. _But_ it's only N{?dist} and 0.N{?dist} for pre-releases.
> > C.f. above. IMO, a defect of the guidelines and to be reconsider.
> > 
> > Let's keep things simple, instead.
> 
> Things would be simplified a lot if we didn't limit our own flexibilities
> in choosing package versions and if 3rd party packagers would not create
> conflicting packages.
How do you think are developers supposed to package packages?

Ralf