repository- & disttag order

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
Fri Jan 9 15:44:43 UTC 2004


On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:17:31PM +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) writes:
> 
> > ** Fully numeric disstags have been favored by RH and fedora.us leadership
> >    in past discussions, but this requires more discussion.
> > ...
> > ** reptag will be necessary for all other repositories.  The current
> >    proposal is attaching it at the end of %{release}.
> 
> reptag at the end causes ambiguities. You can not say if '1.1.1.foo'
> means versions 1.1 for FC1, or if it means version 1 for FC1.1.

That's why it was argumented (among others) that the disttag needs to
start with letters like

      -1.1.rhfc1.es
      -1.rhfc1.1.es

No ambiguity possible. Larger release numbers win over newer
distributions.

> repotag before disttag is the only way which makes sense; see

This breaks the use of disttags for ensuring distribution upgrade
paths. For the same version the release number is compared. If that is
equal it continues at the second order tier with the disttag. If even
that was equal it would continue to comparing repotags, which would be
senseless.

Pulling the repotag in front of the disttag obsoletes its use as an
order parameter, which is a bad thing.

>   http://www.fedora.us/pipermail/fedora-devel/2003-December/002478.html
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20040109/e4014b54/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list