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

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:44:53PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > The main idea is to have a scheme that does not apply to the scope of
> > this one distribution and this current time window. It should apply on
> > FC, RHL, RHEL and why not Mandrake/SuSE, whatever.
> In an ideal world, yes. 
> 
> But I have given in hope vendors can agree on a common naming scheme

Why? It hasn't even been proposed/tried, yet. And it is too early to
propose it, but it can be taken account for to not blcok this path.

> > So the general stance is to have a suffux to the release tag
> > containing an rpm-sortable disttag and an optional repotag, like
> > 
> > foo-1.2.3-4.rh9.ralf.src.rpm
> 
> AFAICT, this approach considers upgrades between distros, but it does
> not consider replacing RH supplied Core packages or nor replacing
> Fedora.US supplied packages nor does it consider replacing "local
> packages" with Fedora.US supplied packages.

I am not sure, what this means. The repotag can be used as an
indicator about which packages in your system come from where (there
are other ways apart from versioning/naming to achieve this).

If a repo choses to replace some part of the base distribution for
some reason, it is in the responsibility of the repo to do so in a way
as to not break anything and ensure future upgrade paths either by
hierarchical build tags for automatically being replaced by newer
vendor releases, or commitment to a community SLA.

> > A solution used by currently most free repos is to have "rh" for RHL
> > and "rhfc" for FC.
> Hmm? Fedora uses 0.fdr.<...>.1 , freshrpms used fr and now seems to have
> switched to using 'fc1.fr', you seem to be using rhfc, packman (No FC1
> rpms there yet, but I am involved there) uses '<vendor-release>.pm', ...
> finally there are Ximian and JPackage ... and ...

most != all ;)
Other than ATrpms rhfc1 is currently used by DAG, PlanetCCRMA, spc,
dries, biorpms, and probably more.

> * FC2 ships perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0.13-5.i386.rpm
> * Thereofore I'd expect a potential FC1-Extras/Legacy package to be
> named perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0.13-0.fdr.5.1.i386.rpm.
> 
> Now, which release-tag to use for my "temporary legacy package"?
> 
> As it seems to me, the only functional solution for my purposes is:
> perl-XML-LibXML-Commmon-0.13-0.fdr.5.<char><*>.1.rpm
> 
> For example:
> perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0.13.0-0.fdr.5.ralf.1.1.rpm

Is this a simple backport? For such packages I started to subtract
0.01 from the release to make me aware, that I changed almost nothing
but add some BuildRequires, so I'd package the rebuild rpm as

perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0.13.0-4.99.rhfc1.ralf.src.rpm

:)

BTW that package already exists:
# apt-cache policy perl-XML-LibXML-Common
perl-XML-LibXML-Common:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 0.13-2.rhfc1.dag
  Version Table:
     0.13-2.rhfc1.dag 0
        995 http://apt.sw.be redhat/fc1/en/i386/dag pkglist
     0.13-1.rhfc1.dag 0
        995 http://apt.sw.be redhat/fc1/en/i386/dag pkglist

-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- 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/20040512/3ffdb21e/attachment.sig>