[Fedora-packaging] Update guidelines with packages from CVS

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Mon May 16 13:28:05 UTC 2005

On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 12:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> No, it isn't. Surely you can avoid the necessity to bump release
> for all branches.

Upon rereading your original mail, I still don't see how this is
avoided. Can you help me understand how the following test cases would

(Assume that FC-3 and FC-4 are current, FC-5 in devel. Also keep in mind
the aforementioned Golden Rule, that packages in FC-3 < FC-4)

1. The Normal Case

In the FC-3 repo, you have:


In the FC-4 repo, you have:


You need to errata the FC-3 repo.

2. The CVS Case (disconnected)

In the FC-3 repo, you start with:

foo-0.0-1.20050315.noarch.com (pre-release cvs checkout)

In FC-4, you need a later checkout:


The FC-3 package needs a bugfix errata, without new cvs checkout. FC-4
does not.

3. The CVS Case (same source)

In the FC-3 repo, you start with:


You use the same cvs co for the FC-4 repo:


Resolve the conflict in naming between branches, and perform an FC-3
only package errata.

(Note that I have avoided dist tag usage on purpose to avoid
"complicating" the issue, but if they're useful in your solutions, feel
free to reintroduce them here)

Thanks in advance,

Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list