Use of %dist tag
Michael Schwendt
bugs.michael at gmx.net
Sun Jun 12 11:37:33 UTC 2005
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 12:37:05 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was wondering about the %dist tag. Afaik the whole idea behind this
> tag is to make sure that upgrades from one FC core + extras to the next
> goes smooth even if the SPEC hasn't changed, so the new extras package
> is just a rebuild of the old. Right?
>
> And also to keep things sane when making changes to extras packages for
> different release. Say we have FC3 and FC4.
>
> Now xxx has to be newer in the FC4 repo then in FC3, so we have:
> FC3 xxx-1.0-2
> FC4 xxx-1.0-3
>
> Now we need to fix a bug for both FC versions so what do we get now?
> something like:
> FC3 xxx-1.0-2.1
> FC4 xxx-1.0-4
>
> Because we can't make FC3-3 since that could cause problems for people
> installing extras from CD's or the like right?
Not, IMO. Installing a Fedora Extras snapshot from CD integrated into
Anaconda or post-install/firstboot would not be any different with
dist tags. You could still run into things like
FC3: extrapackage-1.0-1.fc3 (first release of package for FC3)
FC3: extrapackage-1.0-3.fc3 (up-to-date through yum update)
then a CD based upgrade to FC4 + Extras
FC4: extrapackage-1.0-2.fc4 (first release for FC4 on Extras CD)
and only the next yum update would fetch the latest
FC4: extrapackage-1.0-3.fc4 (from online repository)
which would be newer than the installed build release 3.fc3.
> With dist tags we would get:
> FC3 xxx-1.0-2.fc3
> FC4 xxx-1.0-2.fc4
>
> Now we need to fix a bug for both FC versions so now we get:
> FC3 xxx-1.0-3.fc3
> FC4 xxx-1.0-3.fc4
>
> So to me using dist tags seems much cleaner. Now what I've read using
> dist tags is not mandatory, but what is wise?
Not making them mandatory is wise. fedora-packaging list and other lists
long before that have discussed dist tags.
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list