On disttags (was: Choosing rpm-release for fc1 and fdr add-on rpms)

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 18:09:03 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> > > It also does not seem to cover conventions on
> > > * Replacement packages
> > 
> > Do you mean upgrades of what is included within Fedora Core?
>
> Yes.

Updates for Fedora Core are not fedora.us' area. Except for the very few
packages in the "patches" repository. But that one is a dead end. If
something in Fedora Core is broken, it should be fixed in Fedora Core, not
updated by a 3rd party repo. Replacements, i.e. substitutes for available
functionality of packages in Fedora Core should be prepared as Fedora
Alternatives.
 
> > Obviously, %release must be higher than the current %release of
> > the package in Fedora Core,
>
> Not necessarily - E.g. I might want to apply patches or configure a
> package with different options etc.

To maintain a clean install/update path in one direction (i.e. _to_ your
packages), your packages must win EVR comparison. Downgrade back to
original Core packages would be a special case (rpm -Uvh --oldpackage).
 
> > > Let's try to apply the GuideLines to an example:
> > > A package of mine requires perl-XML-LibXML-Common.
> > > 
> > > Neither Fedora Core 1 nor Fedora.US ship perl-XML-LibXML-Common, but
> > > Fedora Core 2 has it. There is a package proposal pending for months in
> > > Fedora.US's QA to add perl-XML-LibXML-Common to Fedora.US/FC1, but ATM
> > > it is not available for FC1.
> 
> > Choose a %release lower than the current package in the queue and lower
> > than the package in FC2:
> 
> That's not necessary:
> 
> # rpmver 0:0.13-0.fdr.5.ralf.1.1 0:0.13-5
> 0:0.13-5 is newer
> 
> => FC1->FC2 upgrade will work.
> 
> # rpmver 0:0.13-0.fdr.5.ralf.1.1 0:0.13-0.fdr.5.1
> 0:0.13-0.fdr.5.1 is newer
> 
> => An upgrade to a Fedora.US package will work.

Well, that's just a side-effect of "ralf < 1".

> >   perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0.13-0.fdr.4.ralf.1.1.rpm
> > 
> > Or choose the lowest %epoch:%version-%release possible. If you have doubts
> > that 0.13-0 is enough, as a last resort you could even decrease %version
> > to 0 and move the actual software version into the %release tag, e.g.
> > perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0-0.13.1.ralf
> This would contradict to the PackageGuideLines :)

Package naming guidelines are for fedora.us, not for indivual people's
packages.
 
> > > Now, which release-tag to use for my "temporary legacy package"?
> > 
> > Dist-tags are evil. Attempts at defining inter-repository release-tags
> > fail miserably as soon as multiple versions/releases of a package
> > exist and contain different %release tags.
> 
> This is only one side of the medal. On the other side dist-tags provide
> a clean separation for 3rd party supplied packages and prevents users
> from mixing up incompatible packages.

How that? repotags don't appear in dependencies.