[Fedora-packaging] Re: [Bug 192912] Review Request: paps

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Sat Jun 17 00:51:05 UTC 2006

On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 01:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:02:25 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > > Yes. There exist packagers who (In FE devel)
> > > * don't use %{?dist} at all
> > > * some use N%{?dist} and increment N with each iteration.
> > 
> > These are correct...
> > 
> > > * some use N%{?dist}.M and increment M with each build-iteration 
> > 
> > ...and these are not. More bugs to file!
> I disagree. It should be packager's freedom what to do in this
> least-significant position of the release field.
And I disagree, with this.

Conversely: This kind of "freedom" is the cause for a lack of
simplicity, and the cause for the broken upstream path versioning errors
being reported.
With more restrictive conventions, these issues would not exist.

> If this style of bumping release versions were not permitted, we would see
> more unneeded mass-rebuilds of a package for all dists only to keep the
> upgrade path sane when a new build for only an older dist is needed.
Why would that happen?

Make "N%{dist}.M" (w/ N,M ... int > 0) mandatory and drop the
pre/post-release stuff.

I don't see how epoch bumps would ever be needed.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list