Release tag conventions (Was: rpms/libnc-dap/devel libnc-dap.spec, 1.3, 1.4)

Ed Hill ed at eh3.com
Fri Mar 3 15:41:17 UTC 2006


On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 10:20 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > Upstream's specs are completely irrelevant for FE. The only thing that
> 
> I think that being able to be in sync with apstream spec is nice, although 
> I agree that it shouldn't lead to bad practices. I don't try to sync
> with upstream in that case, but I think that extending the release isn't 
> such a case.

Hi Patrice,

I'm afraid Ralf is right here.  The details (especially small details)
of upstream specs are basically irrelevant.


> > matters is consistency within Fedora.
> 
> It also allows to keep spec file in sync for the different branches.
> 
> > All you are doing, is adding unnecessary and avoidable complexity.
> 
> Where is the complexity? Extending release tags instead of bumping
> doesn't add complexity. If I remember well, I also do that for 
> other packages, when I want to keep the branches in sync as much as possible
> and avoid changelog entries when a build didn't complete due to a trivial
> error on a branch but not on others, and I have to change the release to 
> rebuild.

If you go back through the email list archives there was a long
discussion about not relying on the fact that:

  fc3 < fc4 < fc5

when rpm and yum (and other tools) do comparisons of the EVR.  So, you
are in fact violating our long-debated (way too long-debated, IMHO)
policy.

*Please* just bump the release number like all the other packages.

Ed

ps - Its also good idea not to "violate the principle of 
     least surprise".  ;-)

 
-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office:  MIT Dept. of EAPS;  Rm 54-1424;  77 Massachusetts Ave.
             Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails:  eh3 at mit.edu                ed at eh3.com
URLs:    http://web.mit.edu/eh3/    http://eh3.com/
phone:   617-253-0098
fax:     617-253-4464




More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list