Basic questions

[Warren Togami]

Owen Taylor wrote:
> I starting poking around with the extras CVS with a view to maybe
> taking over the orphaned fontforge package, and came up with
> a few basic questions.
>  
>  Tags? 
> 
>    It looks like there is no tagging of built versions in CVS.  
>    If you wanted to reproduce the 0:0.0-2.20041231 build of 
>    fontforge, how would you do it? The only tags I see in CVS
>    are those from the import script.
> 
>    (In the internal Red Hat package CVS, the package maintainer tags,
>    then the build system pulls off the tag)

Eek!  I had assumed (wrongly) that Seth was either pulling tags, or 
tagging stuff himself.  We should immediately change the procedure so 
that Seth only pulls tags, so this forces all package maintainers to 
explicitly tag what they want built and request that exact N-V-R.

Any objections?

> 
>  Building? 
> 
>    Once you've updated a package how do you get it built. Is the
>    process still "Put a note on 
>    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FC3Status or
>    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FC4Status and then magic 
>    happens?"

Magic happens = Seth sometimes reads the page and builds everything.

> 
>  Releases for different distros
> 
>    Say I wanted to update the fontforge package for both the 
>    devel branch and for the FC-3 branch. Presumably, I want
>    to make sure that the devel version number is always newer
>    than the FC-3 version number so that people can do intro-distro
>    upgrades and get the rebuilt version. How do I achieve this?
> 
>    One system I've used in the past (for Fedora Core / RHEL errata)
>    is to say, call the devel version:
>  
>      mypackage-1.0-1.fc4
> 
>    Then backport to FC3 as:
>      
>      mypackage-1.0-1.fc3
> 
>    If I have fix specific to the FC3 package, I might then number 
>    the new version as:
> 
>      mypackage-1.0-1.fc3.1
> 
>    Is it reasonable to do something like this for extras? Is there 
>    a standard?

Do whatever works.  This scheme does work for FC, so it will work fine 
here.  Just be consistent for that package.

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com