Package EVR problems in Fedora 2008-06-10

Adam Jackson ajax at redhat.com
Wed Jun 11 15:24:19 UTC 2008


On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 16:04 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:24:36PM -0400, buildsys at fedoraproject.org wrote:
> > ocaml-deriving: 
> >   F8-updates > F9-updates (0:0.1.1a-4.fc8 > 0:0.1.1a-3.fc9)
> > 
> > ocaml-gsl: 
> >   F8-updates > F9-updates (0:0.6.0-4.fc8 > 0:0.6.0-3.fc9)
> > 
> > ocaml-json-static: 
> >   F8-updates > F9-updates (0:0.9.6-4.fc8 > 0:0.9.6-3.fc9)
> [etc etc]
> 
> Is this wrong?
> 
> I'm afraid to say that a lot of packages I have do this.  The reason
> is that I develop and build packages on Rawhide, then backport them to
> F-8.  However when backporting to F-8 I have to bump the release
> number up, typically because I have to add an ExcludeArch: ppc64[*]
> for F-8, but may be because of other packing twiddling too.
> 
> I wasn't aware that there had to be a strict increase in package
> numbering between branches.  (In fact, I wasn't aware that Fedora even
> allowed updating between Fedora releases).

It's very strongly encouraged.  We do provide upgrade paths between
releases (and are even working to make them more robust).  So yes,
please do keep EVRs for older releases lower (in the rpmvercmp sense)
than those for newer releases.

When in doubt:

% sudo yum -y install rpmdevtools
% rpmdev-vercmp 0:0.9.6-4.fc8 0:0.9.6-3.fc9
0:0.9.6-4.fc8 is newer

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080611/eb5062cb/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list