The Future of Fedora Package Management and the RPM Philosophy

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 01:43:31PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 19:33 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:13:11AM +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 07:58:03PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > 
> > > > - Don't make me increment integers (Release); this is
> > > >   what computers (i.e. the build system) are for
> > > 
> > > Whatever you suggest to change, be sure that the final spec file
> > > contains a real integer, not a macro defined in the build system
> > > or so.
> > > 
> > > It's already very discussable that %{?dist} is now used in the
> > > release tags.  I know this was introduced to overcome a - what
> > > you can maybe call - shortcome in RPM, but it has its drawbacks
> > > and every use of non-standard externally defined macros violates
> > > the principles of RPM, being able to reproduce package building.
> > 
> > But the disttag is designed in such a way as to also work when there
> > is no definition for it.
> 
> Wouldn't it make sense to add a make newrelease command that greps the
> existing tag from cvs and retrieves the current release number.
> Then use sed/awk/perl/whatever to increment it (in a sensible way) and
> writes it down into the spec, and, while there, also creates a new
> changelog entry with the current date and person/email information.

FWIW these things are all done in the appropriate emacs mode. Don't now
if there is a vim mode as well, if not, then maybe we need one.
-- 
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/20070609/df4f2192/attachment.sig>