to bump or not to bump
Thorsten Leemhuis
fedora at leemhuis.info
Tue Feb 3 13:41:28 UTC 2009
On 03.02.2009 13:27, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> I would like to hear some more opinions on the subject described in
> the thread started by
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481601#c6. My opinion is
> expressed in comment #9 and I am quite sure that any future update of
> the rawhide version might introduce the exact same problem again.
I'd tend to agree with some of what the reported outlines, but I'd say
it's not important enough to justify a rebuild.
> I
> could, of course, keep using always the same release tag as in the
> corresponding rawhide version, but it looks a bit odd to me.
For me it's not odd; I'd even say it's the natural thing to do.
Rawhide is the main "devel branch" for the spec file itself -- the
version-release of the spec file for me is like a verison number of a
regular software. Version numbers don't go backwards; thus if I'd (kind
of) fork a spec file by picking it from rawhide and using it for another
branch (EPEL in this case) then I'd normally leave the version-release
as it is as long as %dist gets used in %release.
But if maintainers in Rawhide and EPEL are different then I'd want to be
on the safe site and would add a ".1" to %release and "rebuild for EPEL"
to the changelog -- then it's obvious where this spec file exactly comes
from and how they relate to each other -- that might be important to
know for users and packagers.
CU
knurd
More information about the epel-devel-list
mailing list