Should redhat-release be versioned or unversioned?

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 21:56 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 18:29:41 -0800,
>    Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 14:56 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >> While looking at bug 1044675 I noticed that redhat-release is unversioned
> >> in fedora-release and versioned in generic-release. I would expect it
> >> to be the same in both of these packages. I think it probably makes the
> >> most sense to version it for anything that is still using that, but wanted
> >> to check if other people had good reasons for doing it one way or the
> >> other.
> >
> >I've already looked into this. The only reason I didn't fix it already
> >is that generic-release's tarball is secret sauce, there's no
> >instructions on generating it in the spec file.
> 
> Lovely. OK won't rush into anything on this side then. (I might try to 
> figure something out and consult with people to see what they think 
> if I think I figured it out.)
> 
> >The bug I was looking at was
> >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040607 , where the
> >redhat-release provide being versioned caused a problem (whereas in your
> >case it was the other way around).
> 
> I think both cases are wrong now. I think yum used to do something 
> smarter (or perhaps dumber) about grabbing the version. If I switch 
> over to using system-release I'm going to hit the same problem. The 
> problem I was seeing seems likely to have been triggered by the same 
> yum update. So we'll probably want to make the same changes to 
> system-release that we do to redhat-release.
> 
> >I agree it makes sense for them to match, to provide maximum similarity
> >of behaviour, but we shouldn't version fedora-release's as
> >{version}-{release} if we make them versioned, it appears! Either both
> >unversioned, or both versioned just {version}, I think.
> 
> I assume you mean redhat-release above. fedora-release shouldn't be 
> in a provides.

Sorry, I was implicitly discussing both package's provides: of
redhat-release.

> I'll also see if I can find some documentation on provides for how it 
> is supposed to work regarding version and release.

Not sure what you mean, but it's kind of situational. There isn't a
Single Global Rule on exactly how 'virtual' provides should be
versioned, to my knowledge.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net