Inconsistent package tags

[Brandon Holbrook]

Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 12:04 +0930, n0dalus wrote:
>   
>> On 24 Jun 2007 20:31:22 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:
>>     
>>> n> 369 (216) packages with fc8 in the release tag (shouldn't we be
>>> n> using f8?)
>>>
>>> No, it's fc8.  f8 would sort less than fc7, causing badness.
>>>       
>> I know, but its still undesirable to need to put 'fc' in every package
>> of every release from this point on. Could packages be moved over to
>> f8 by using release numbers, epochs or some other rpm hack?
>>     
>
> No.
>
>   
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.

-Brandon