[Fedora-packaging] Java naming scheme

Fernando Nasser fnasser at redhat.com
Thu Jan 18 15:57:31 UTC 2007

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thursday 18 January 2007 09:26, Fernando Nasser wrote:
>>> Spot brought the 3jpp.fc6.1 format to the packaging group which was
>>> discussed and agreed as a possible temporary format.  Unfortunately,
>>> 3jpp.fc6.1 doesn't work for interleaving with jpackage if jpp is
>>> removed.  So we'll probably have to have another (hopefully short)
>>> discussion about using 3jpp.1.fc6 & 3.1.fc6.
>> Why the %{_dist} is necessary here?  Can't we just add the number?
>> I thought we would need the %{_dist} only if we needed to have the same
>> RPM built in two different distro releases and they were release
>> specific (depend on some shared library or something).
> Unfortunately it may be necessary for you folks, if we ever have to bump the 
> package in an older release, without becoming NVR higher than the same 
> package in a newer release.  If 3jpp is used in both FC6 and F7, and we have 
> to rebuild in FC6 for whatever localized reason, we have to be able to do it 
> in a way that doesn't promote it to be NVR higher than the 3jpp in F7.

But isn't the norm that we do this only if such case ever happen?

Anyway, I believe the only case we would respin the FC6 one would be if 
there was a (security?) bug, so we will probably have to respin the FC7 
one as well, so it will end up being FC6 +1 anyway.  At least this is 
what has been happening so far.

Shouldn't we leave the %{_dist} out and add it only if absolutely 
necessary for a specific package?

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list