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

Re: Best solution: rhfc1 (was: Distags in rpm sort order (yes,versioning again ;))



On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Axel Thimm wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:02:15PM -0800, Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> > Previously on this thread
> > > > disttag can be:
> > > >                       A               B               C
> > > > Red Hat Linux 7.3     fdr0.7.3        rh7.3           rh7.3
> > > > Red Hat Linux 8.0     fdr0.8.0        rh8.0           rh8.0
> > > > Red Hat Linux 9       fdr0.9          rh9             rh9
> > > > Fedora Core 1         fdr1            rh9.1           1fdr
> > > > Fedora Core 2 test1   fdr1.95         rh9.1.95        1.95fdr
> 
> > I'm starting to use something similar in Planet CCRMA, I was previously
> > using:
> >   rh73 -> rh80 -> rh90
> > (so I can't really switch to rh7.3/rh8.0/rh9 at this point)
> > And now I'm rebuilding for FC1 with:
> >   rh73 -> rh80 -> rh90 -> rhfc1
> > Seems to work fine. 
> 
> Many 1000 thanks to Fernando. This is the best solution. I forgot that
> rpm compares segment-wise and that longer stings are "newer".

Hurray!


> I suggest all repos to use Fernando' suggestion, rhfc1, if they are
> using rhXX for RHL. Please do use the same disttag for creating a
> uniform versioning, .e.g.
> 
> 	foo-1.2.3-4.rhfc1.at
>
> Replace ".at" with your own repotag, none, if you don't want one, or
> ".fr", ".dag", ".che", ".ccrma", ".rb", ".kde4rh" (just suggestions).
> Note: the repotag (contrary to the disttag) should not be part of the
> rpm ordering, which is why it should come last.

I never intended to use the disttag as part of the EVR comparison. But I'm 
sure going to adapt DAR to work with the new scheme and use it by default.
It does make more sense to have the repotag at the end of the release.

Is there already a different repotag decided for fedora, fedora extras 
en/or fedora legacy ? Or is there no real gain to differentiate ?

Thanks Axel for making this a priority. It should have been decided more 
in advance, because taking corrective actions is always a waste of 
valuable time. I for one am glad to have delayed building for Fedora Core.
I already use the disttag 'rhel3' in the same manner.

Is there already a standard for the apt/yum -directory structure ? It 
would be nice to have a single syntax that repositories could move to.

I like 

	rhel3:		redhat/el3/i386 
	rhfc1:		redhat/fc1/i386

in the same line as 

	rh80:		redhat/8.0/i386
	rh90:		redhat/9/i386

Future versions would then become:

	rhel3.1:	redhat/el3.1/i386
	rhfc1.2:	redhat/fc1.2/i386

Could this subject be added to the naming convention proposal, together 
with the disttag ?

--   dag wieers,  dag wieers com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]




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