Inconsistent package tags

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 16:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tuesday 26 June 2007 10:22:33 Brandon Holbrook wrote:
> >> Couldn't we tag all packages built *from this point on* with f8?  New
> >> builds have to bump the EVR anyway, so 2.f8 is still greater than
> >> 1.fc7.  The whole "f8 is rpm-less than fc7" argument is only valid if
> >> you assume no other changes to a package's EVR when being rebuilt, but
> >> AFAIK there's never been a package rebuilt in fedoraland where the
> >> disttag was the only thing that was bumped.  Granted, that means there
> >> would be a mix of 'fc' and 'f' packages, but that's no more tacky than
> >> our current fc6+fc7 mix.
> > 
> > Many cases the same version-release were built on multiple branches.  
> > frobitz-1.2 comes out and we want to release it across all of Fedora.  
> > Therefor we can have frobitz-1.2-1%{dist} on each branch and it will 
> > automagically calculate to 
> > 
> > frobitz-1.2-1.fc6
> > frobitz-1.2-1.fc7
> > frobitz-1.2-1.fc8
> > 
> > Now, if we used your suggestion and made it just f8, suddenly the 
> > frobitz-1.2-1.f8 version is /lower/ than the frobitz-1.2-1.fc7 version.  
> > Broken upgrade path.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I'm sure I'm saying something stupid, but isn't an upgrade path like that
>  1) "unlikely" to happen while packages get updated every now and then,
Nope, converse it very frequent. Wrt. to former FE packages, I'd say
it's the "rule".

> 	and thus will have a complete upgrade path at some point, while
> 	1.2-1.fc7 is installed on a machine that gets update 1.2-2.f8
>  2) not used by anaconda upgrade -i'm not sure about this one ;-)
>  3) used only by the not-recommended yum upgrade -again, the "only" part
> 	I'm not sure about
>  4) completely unnecessary while both .fc7 and f8 programs have the same
> 	version number, source and are built with the same spec
Consider the rpms can differ internally (may use different paths,
different compilers, might have different deps etc.)

>  5) easily fixed by bumping the release number for the 'later' package
>  6) happening regularly with like dev/udev, libata, stuff like that?
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing something that prevents 'f8' being the dist-tag,
yes, f8 is not safe against rebuilding from the same spec:

# fedora-rpmvercmp 
Epoch1 :0
Version1 :1
Release1 :1.fc7
Epoch2 :0
Version2 :1
Release2 :1.f8
0:1-1.fc7 is newer

Ralf