Package EVR problems in FC+FE 2007-03-22

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:26:09PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:59:32 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 07:40:51PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:22:15 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:34:02 -0400 (EDT), buildsys wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > limb AT jcomserv.net:
> > > > > >     ettercap
> > > > > >       FE5 > FE6 (0:0.7.3-13.3.fc5 > 0:0.7.3-12.fc6)
> > > > > >       FE5 > FE7 (0:0.7.3-13.3.fc5 > 0:0.7.3-12.fc7)
> > > > > >     
> > > > > >     gnubg
> > > > > >       FE5 > FE7 (0:20061119-8.fc5.2 > 0:20061119-7.fc7)
> > > > > >       FE6 > FE7 (0:20061119-8.fc6 > 0:20061119-7.fc7)
> > > > > >     
> > > > > >     xmoto-edit
> > > > > >       FE5 > FE6 (0:0.2.4-6.1.fc5 > 0:0.2.4-6.fc6)
> > > > > >       FE5 > FE7 (0:0.2.4-6.1.fc5 > 0:0.2.4-6.fc7)
> > > > > >     
> > > > > > miker5slow AT grandecom.net:
> > > > > >     etherape
> > > > > >       FE5 > FE6 (0:0.9.7-4.1.fc5 > 0:0.9.7-4.fc6)
> > > > > >       FE5 > FE7 (0:0.9.7-4.1.fc5 > 0:0.9.7-4.fc7)
> > > > > 
> > > > > The issues with "ettercap", "xmoto-edit" and "etherape" are one of the
> > > > > infamous problems when adding a %dist tag.
> > > > 
> > > > Ehem. All of the above have the same inequality relation if you drop
> > > > the disttag ...
> > > 
> > > Impossible, because then you cannot tag and build the packages in the way
> > > they have been built above. Only due to the added %disttag, it was
> > > possible to keep the rest of %release equal across multiple branches.
> > 
> > You're setting 13.3 and 12 as well as 4.1 and 4 to be equal. OK, that
> > must count as cheating at the very least. ;)
> 
> Haha, almost funny.
> 
> So, you've taken the bait and continued with your very own way of
> thinking. What do you want to prove this time? ;)

Me, nothing. You're the one doing advanced mathematics no one can
catch up with.

> That Joe Packager can do the following?
> 
>        FE5 > FE7 (0:0.7.3-100 > 0:0.7.3-12)
> 
> Yes, look closely. In a no-dist-tag scheme, packager can break versioning
> and upgrade paths in various ways just as when using dist tags. What is
> the point? Aiming at creating an endless thread once more?

Sorry, you did post something controversial waiting for a reply, what
exactly do you expect from the rest of the world, to remain saddened
in silence?

> The key difference is, that _normally_ without a dist tag the packager is
> fully responsible for keeping release of the latest branch higher than for
> old branches.

So, let me understand, we have a fully manual way to manage upgrade
paths, which is as error-prone as the packager's brain can be, or a
half-automatic way that solves 90% of the problem. And your conclusion
is: If we don't solve 100% of the problem let's drop to 0%.

> This will be my last reply in this thread.

So say we all.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070323/502a4f52/attachment.sig>