My thoughts on repotag
Michael Schwendt
mschwendt.tmp0701.nospam at arcor.de
Mon Mar 19 14:54:02 UTC 2007
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:42:58 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > I'm sure you could have come up with this:
> > >
> > > foo-1.0.0-2.el4.1.fdr < foo-1.0.0-2.el5.0.fdr
> > >
> > > Which is exactly how it used to be without the repotag. I can only see bad
> > > intent in the form of your examples.
> >
> > Do you realise that now you've gone as far as comparing a release digit
> > with a repo tag?
>
> No, I am not. In fact I have the same number of components.
>
> 2 vs 2
> el vs el
> 4.1 vs 5.0
> fdr vs fdr
?? Has the proposal been changed? It used to be repotag at the right, so
that is _three_ fields instead of four. You would compare packages with
three fields against packages with four fields. Unless you want to enforce
a very-specific format for %release to be used by all packagers and all
repos. E.g. an ugly and inflexible 1%{?dist}.0%{?repo}
> > 2.el4.1 wins over all 2.el4.somerepotag
>
> I fail to see how that is a problem ?
>
> Since 2 packages from different repositories have no relation.
They don't have any relation? How comes?
> There is no reason why this behaviour is right or wrong.
>
> In fact I would expect 2.el4.1 to win over 2.el4.repotag even in a single
> repository context. (eg. when you add a repotag but older packages
> have not) That's how RPM was designed, that's how I expect it to be.
Sure, except that using %dist is confusing enough for several packagers
already, as they do things like 2.1.fc6 > 2.fc7
With the repotag the situation doesn't improve. It's another string
that enters RPM version comparison.
More information about the epel-devel-list
mailing list